Or Trump wants Patel to be his Lavrenti Beriya. But of course, when it's John Bolton commenting, conspiracy theorists will be enthusiastic that someone like Bolton is against Patel. For them it's just shows the "credibility" of Patel.

Yet one has to remember, that the FBI hasn't been manned from the start out of revolutionary serial killers as the Cheka / NKVD was. The organization Berija lead, just as the KGB, saw itself as the forefront figthers of the revolution. Whatever we can think about the Hoover years, the FBI, just as the US judicial system, isn't the tool of the President. FBI agents think of themselves as policemen, not servants to a revolutionary cause, who have to take care of the ugly hard work. Just as the US military sees itself as defending the Republic, not as the tool of the President.

What do you think that FBI agents will think about a director that thinks they themselves, the people he ought to lead, are the gangsters and the enemy to the American that have to be purged? This is the real issue here: this will just make the FBI weaker and ineffective. Someone like Kash Patel will enthusiastically try to fulfill every whim and vagary that Trump tells him to do. You think that will work?

And if Trump wants to deport every thirty third person living in America, guess who are then put to do this job? Already Trump has talked about using the Army, but likely all security agencies will be put into this effort, which Trump has control over. It's about many millions of people who should be deported. You think someone like Kash Patel would complain that this isn't what the FBI should do? That it isn't one the top priorities of the FBI? Heck, for a Trump minion like Patel, the mission statement of the FBI, to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States" is simply a carte blance for doing anything that Trump wants. His real actions in the previous Trump administration show what a sycophant he is, so it's whimsical to believe that his mission is to fight the Deep State. Previously he was part of the infant "Deep State" of Trump himself!

No, it simply won't work. Trump is no Hitler, no Stalin. Without Stalin, there's no Berija. The great populist orator lacks the essential leadership abilities that are needed to overthrow democracy in the US. And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI.

... to the silent cheers of a few that don't have the US' best interest at heart.
All their "deep state" "swamp" enemies ... crap sells, especially to a certain demographic, again to the silent cheers of...
Well, maybe they can turn the cheers into discouragement or indifference, we'll see. — jorndoe

It's basically quite logical. When you see your own government as the enemy, then you will parrot similar narratives as those countries truly hostile at you. And people don't understand just how detrimental this is when these kind of people really get into power.

When you aren't singling out the corrupt actors, just like Biden and his lies about not pardoning his son, but paint with a large brush over entire departments and institutions, the damage will be serious. Conspiracy theorist don't go after individuals, but think there's a larger organization behind everything. First and foremost, conspiracy theorists don't believe that their own government has done anything positive. Hence there's no understanding about the reality, that the alliances and the Pax Americana has actually benefited the US hugely.

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And all deals simply don't go through. "Winning" any deal might not be a win.

Why I think this is important is that usually all US Presidents attempt a domestic agenda, don't get much of it done and finally the only playing field for them is the Foreign policy arena.

What is Putin going to do, declare "victory" while leaving the "Nazi regime" in power in Kyiv with explicit US security guarantees that are for all intents and purposes going to have the same effect as being in NATO — Count Timothy von Icarus

Would in the end the US do this? That's the real question. I'm all for Trump if would seek a position of strength for Ukraine, but is it really this. Where US has really commitment is supporting Israel. That's where I see a real bipartisan commitment, which isn't fluttering in the Wind. Ukraine hasn't that. In 2016 Trump did give a damn on Ukraine. Anyway, I fear that in the US many politicians see Ukraine simply as a "problem". Like Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam etc. While Putin can indeed declare a victory. After all, according to him, Russia has fought NATO all along, hence Russia can say it has defeated the might of the West and prevailed.

This was what was worth all the deaths — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, the idea of Russia that has regained it's territory, Russia re-emerging from it's latest "Time of Troubles" is indeed worth that. It's irrelevant that Crimea and the Donbas are basically more of a dead weight and a burden than new resources that would or could vitalize the country. It's irrelevant that the important economic ties to Europe are cut. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics. He has re-iterated even today what a disaster the collapse of the Soviet Union was and this is his attempt to restore it. Politicians do start wars because of ideas.

I can certainly see Putin being forced to overreach and this triggering a stronger response. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia could lose as it did lose the Russo-Japanese War or the Soviet-Polish war. A war lost would likely change Russian politics and lead to internal reforms. Yet if the West repeats to itself again and again that "the Ukraine war is unwinnable", then Putin will win and Russia won't stop at Ukraine.

As mentioned sometime, continuing to bring up "NATO is in a proxy war with Russia", is about as helpful/useful as saying "North Korea and Iran are in a proxy war with Ukraine", — jorndoe

Except that in the case of North Korea it isn't in a proxy war. When you commit your own armed forces into a war, you are directly a combatant, whatever you say about denying the whole issue or declare them being "volunteers" etc.

* * *
What is happening in Georgia now will be telling. After several proxy conflicts, an open war and annexations, will Georgia bow down and accept it's place under Russia sphere of influence? Another example that this isn't just about Ukraine.

Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show. Who is? Beats me. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, Biden is running the show at least to pardon his son. Yes, he is inept and corrupt. But that doesn't change things for the next administration. Why should it also be inept and corrupt?

You see, it's not the idea of a FBI director to be a purely political position. You do have the political appointment to supervise the FBI, the Attorney General. That's the "democratic oversight", usually. Just as in my country, there's a minister for Justice. But it would be questionable if a President of Finland would start putting his minions to be the head of the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (which is something equivalent to the FBI). That the guy wouldn't be a policeman and someone with intel work background would raise immediately eyebrows in our democracy.

Above all, it was Trump himself that appointed the current FBI director when he fired Comey. This is simply a power grab: Trump wants a loyal yes-man to the position to act as his personal investigative bureau. And if you look at what Kash Patel did in the White House, that's what you are getting.

If Trump was asked : "Have you no sense of decency?" he would just smirk and say: "I have the most decency, the best decency. They say no one has more decency than me." It is, of course his complete lack of decency and his shamelessness that shields him from even being bothered by the accusation. — Fooloso4

Yes, many things have changed. You see, back then people respected the system, even McCarthy. But for people who see the United States government itself as the enemy, why would they care? The ENEMY is the United States government. You fight your enemy in any way possible.

Dismissing Patel because of his lack of experience is silly because his experience includes serving as a U.S. National Security Council official, — NOS4A2

Yes, at least Fox News makes him to be well suited for the job. He also sells Trump shirts, btw.
So he was a NSC staffer there, but I think his breakthrough, if I remember correctly, was writing or assisting on writing the Nunes memo. Interestingly it was Carter Page that made me first surprised, because Page was the first American ever to say that Ukraine was an artificial state (and hence talked the Kremlin line). Then Patel was active in Ukraine when Trump was looking ways to get Biden. So basically he's a minion that Trump wants to have around.

Besides, all of your experienced directors like McCabe and Comey have been proven by investigations to be wildly incompetent, biased, and unable to abide by a strict fidelity to the law. — NOS4A2

So what failure did Trump do with the current FBI director, that he himself appointed? Comey or McCabe aren't replaced here, but Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee.

What is his wild incompetency? That he didn't deliver an "October Surprise" like Comey did with reopening the Hillary Clinton investigation and didn't go after Biden, his boss, with similar investigations? Not MAGA enough for you?

This is just bullshit. You really think you are rooting for someone like Patel to "drain the swamp", go against the Deep State? Nothing like that is happening here. Everything is just partisan politics and a power grab disguised in "fighting the Deep State". But people fall for it, just like they have fallen over every time to think that Republicans will make the Government smaller. Trump made it very clear what kind of a FBI director he really wants: a loyal Herbert Hoover that will go after Trump's own enemies.

(And correction, Kash has written at least three books about King Donald)

You can tell people are scared of getting exposed by Patel. — NOS4A2

I don't care a Goddamn fuck what Patel "exposes". It's not the director of the FBI that's job is to "expose" people. It's his job to lead a 37 000 person organization. How could some Patel make differences, really? He hasn't lead any kind of organization, has basically worked three years in the Trump administration and is a simple Floridian lawyer who has a personal grudge against the FBI. He is total political appointee. He'll just cripple the effectiveness of the department and sink it's morale.

It’s just not true that Patel has no plan, because he wrote a whole book describing it. — NOS4A2

Oh yes, he did!!!! :rofl:



Ohhh... King Trump is confronted by the evil woke Deep State. And HILLARY!!! (And seems like Kash Patel himself is in the book as the friendly magician helping king Trump) :lol:

And really @NOS4A2, you think that this yes-man of Trump really wants to "reassert self government"? What you said is simply that he's going to bog down the department by a needless moving of the department somewhere else (which will cost much and disrupt ordinary work) and then go against people that he or Trump deems to part of "the Deep State", corrupt law enforcement personnel, in retaliation of prior inquiries on Trump.

And that's fucking it. Really, if you believe that it's something else than retaliation against those who made the inquiries of Trump, and need of "aggressive congressional oversight", that's really naive. Trump doesn't give a fuck about "aggressive congressional oversight". Isn't Kash actually going after those politicians who should "aggressive congressional oversight" in January 6th.

Once again we see what Trump means by MAGA, a return to the time of his mentor Roy Cohn and McCarthyism, a campaign of fear and repression, with the "deep state" now taking the place of communism as the enemy within. — Fooloso4

Then it was the McCarthy hearings against the US armed forces that ended McCarthyism. For those who don't know, it's very telling what happened to McCarthy and Roy Cohn, as they imploded on live television. Would that happen today, no?



Yet now the idea of going against "the Deep State" is simply absurd. Yet this is the line that Trump goes on again and again: that the real enemy is inside the US, not China and, heaven forbid, not Russia. It is absurd and illogical as Trump is the head of the executive branch. And he should be the law and order President. Of course this is easy for Trump: anyone who is loyal to him is a "warrior" and anyone that opposes or simply doesn't go with all of what he wants is part of the "Deep State".

So next absolutely loyal sycophant yes-man Trump wants to head (read demolish) an US institution is Kash Patel to head the FBI. Here's (from three months ago) a short clip why the NSC staffer that Trump wanted to put into CIA and FBI leading positions. Before being the yes-man of Trump, basically Patel was a layer in Florida and that's basically it.



And this just tell what's it going to be like. Trump wants to go after people he doesn't like and minions like Kash Patel will go after them ...and figure out on the way how, as Kash himself states.

The issue with these conspiracy theorists and people around Trump that talk about the "Deep State" is that they don't give a fuck about strengthening the democratic institutions against a "Deep State", they simply want to run it, embrace it and expand it for the service of Trump. Total devotion to Trump is the key.

If he would be given the FBI, the end result would be that FBI likely would be less functioning and worse performing institution. True reforms are done by people who are devoted in improving an institution, not having their only objective to serve the whims of the President and having likely a personal vendetta against the department they will be running.

But of course, for one @NOS4A2, it's the best pick. Because of course the US doesn't need an FBI. Should it be demolished?

He doesn't need to put any effort into that. — frank

Trump will do that for him? :chin:

Actually, the Kremlin surely hopes this happens. An intense trade war might do the trick.

Or it might not. Let's remember what was written about Trump's trade wars in the first Trump administration:

(Brookings, 2020) As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump built his argument for the presidency around his claimed acumen as a dealmaker. As the 2020 election draws nearer, President Trump and his surrogates are doubling down on that assertion, including by calling attention to what he has deemed “the biggest deal ever seen”: the “phase one” trade deal with China. The agreement reportedly includes a Chinese commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods above 2017 levels by the end of 2021.

Six months after the deal was inked, the costs and benefits of this agreement are coming into clearer focus. Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” the ultimate results of the phase one trade deal between China and the United States — and the trade war that preceded it — have significantly hurt the American economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the trade war was meant to resolve. The effects of the trade war go beyond economics, though. Trump’s prioritization on the trade deal and de-prioritization of all other dimensions of the relationship produced a more permissive environment for China to advance its interests abroad and oppress its own people at home, secure in the knowledge that American responses would be muted by a president who was reluctant to risk losing the deal.

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America

Let’s not forget, however, that while Trump inked the deal with the Taliban that lead to the US withdrawal, it was Biden who had to execute it, which lead to those disastrous scenes and deaths at Kabul Airport and the debacle of the collapse of the Afghan military. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is so. The double whammy of two incompetent leaders is what created us scenes where desperate Afghans try to fly jet transports holding on to their landing gear... not understanding that they will die as the cruise speed of the aircraft is 520 mph and it flies at altitudes they won't have oxygen and aren't going to survive the cold either.

The unfortunate issue here is that because Presidents of both parties are culprits for this disaster, it isn't discussed at all. Because it's a bipartisan failure, in the highly partisan discourse it won't surface.

I think it’s too optimistic to hope for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, but it’s desperately important to avoid and outcome that Putin can claim as a victory. — Wayfarer

It's not so rosy either for Putin and Russia. He is burning through a lot of manpower and war material. It's not like all would be lost for Ukraine.

Why the situation is actually quite bad is very well put in the following video that also goes through what mistakes Trump made with the peace deal with the Taleban and what kind of peace plans there are now. Now we don't know what Trump will, do, yet a quick deal can have dramatic consequences. OF course, as the commentator say, this all is very speculative...



Going for an armstice and freezing the border where it is will be a victory for Putin. And then the conflict can continue as an on/off conflict it was 2014-2022. This will be simply damning and a way for Russia to really wore down Ukraine and NATO countries.

Now Trump has picked Keith Kellogg as the special envoy for Ukraine, who has been working at the America First Institute after retirement. At least this is a general, who isn't at all clueless, but has been a realist all along and just from looking at interviews he has given as a Fox commentator before the invasion and throughout the war. Kellog earlier urged the US to give more arms when Ukraine had the initiative and well predicted that the US isn't giving enough for Ukraine to win and that Russia will go on the defensive (which proved to be correct at that time).

On the America First Institute (think tank), Kellog himself gives a well thought paper on how he see the situation here: America First, Russia, & Ukraine

Some quotes from that paper that Kellog (and the think tank) state,

Ukraine’s potential admission to NATO was a sensitive issue for Vladimir Putin even before Joe Biden took the oath of office in January 2021. Although Putin was momentarily open to the idea in the early 2000s, he began to speak out against it after the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, which confirmed that NATO one day planned to admit Ukraine as a member.

Putin has long argued that Ukraine could never leave Russia’s sphere of influence by claiming Russians and Ukrainians are one people, denying that Ukrainians are a separate people, and opposing the idea of an independent Ukrainian state. During a one-on-one meeting with President George W. Bush in 2008, Putin said, “You have to understand, George. Ukraine is not even a country.” During a visit to Kyiv in 2013, Putin said, “God wanted the two countries to be together,” and their union was based upon “the authority of the Lord,” unalterable by any earthly force.[ii] Putin underscored and highlighted this idea in a July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” in which he argued Ukraine could only be sovereign in partnership with Russia and asserted that present-day Ukraine occupies historically Russian lands.[iii]

During a February 2024 interview with Putin by journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin provided a long, nonsensical account of Russian and Ukrainian history in which he disputed Ukraine’s nationality and history and repeated his ridiculous claims that Russia invaded Ukraine in part to fight Nazism in the country.[iv]

Here you can see that Kellogg is fully aware of the reason why Putin attacked Ukraine and is fully aware (unlike the pro-Kremlin apologists. Mearsheimer, Sachs) of the reasons why this isn't only about NATO enlargement.

Then a bit of alternative history, "what if" things had been done differently:

An America First approach could have prevented the invasion.

First, it was in America’s best interests to maintain peace with Putin and not provoke and alienate him with aggressive globalist human rights and pro-democracy campaigns or an effort to promote Ukrainian membership in NATO. It made no sense even to allude to supporting eventual NATO membership for Ukraine, as this would require a unanimous vote of NATO members, which at the time was highly unlikely. Ukraine also needed to meet stiff membership requirements, including democratic and military reforms that included aligning the Ukrainian military with NATO equipment. (At the June 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, NATO members pledged to admit Ukraine once they agreed "conditions are met," and dropped the membership requirements. This was understood to mean NATO would consider admitting Ukraine after the war ends.)

Second, it was in America’s interest to make a deal with Putin on Ukraine joining NATO, especially by January 2022 when there were signs that a Russian invasion was imminent. This was the time when the Biden Administration should have dropped its obsession with publicly criticizing Putin and worked toward a compromise. A U.S. offer to delay Ukraine’s admission into NATO for a decade might have been enough to convince Putin to call off the invasion, but Biden Administration officials refused to make such an offer.

Third, the United States and its allies should have sent substantial lethal aid to Ukraine in the fall of 2021 to deter a Russian invasion. Instead, as an invasion appeared likely in December 2021, Biden ignored urgent appeals from Zelenskyy for military aid—especially anti-tank Javelins and anti-air Stingers—and warned Putin that the United States would send lethal aid to Ukraine if Russia invaded. Biden’s message conveyed U.S. weakness to Putin, implying he could use military intimidation to manipulate U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Some notable points. Kellogg understands that NATO membership wasn't happening, and lethal military aid should have been jumped up before the invasion. Only that is deterrence. Yet this is only a hypothetical scenario and if Putin would have been stopped from invading Ukraine is uncertain as his actions fully show that this isn't just about NATO or what the US does, but Ukraine itself.

As this is very long, here's Kellogg's actual peace plan, or what the objective of it should be:

This should start with a formal U.S. policy to bring the war to a conclusion.

Specifically, it would mean a formal U.S. policy to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.

To convince Putin to join peace talks, President Biden and other NATO leaders should offer to put off NATO membership for Ukraine for an extended period in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.

In their April 2023 Foreign Affairs article, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan proposed that in exchange for abiding by a cease-fire, a demilitarized zone, and participating in peace talks, Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief. Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office. Until that happens, the United States and its allies would pledge to only fully lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations after it signs a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine. We also call for placing levies on Russian energy sales to pay for Ukrainian reconstruction.

By enabling Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength while also communicating to Russia the consequences if it fails to abide by future peace talk conditions, the United States could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned with U.S. and Ukrainian interests. Part of this negotiated end-state should include provisions in which we establish a long-term security architecture for Ukraine’s defense that focuses on bilateral security defense. Including this in a Russia-Ukraine peace deal offers a path toward long-term peace in the region and a means of preventing future hostilities between the two nations.

That seems calming as at least this is realistic, but then again, Kellogg is just an envoy and can be replaced. The notable issue here is if Ukraine really would be negotiating from a position of strength. Would Trump be ready to make a bilateral defense agreement on Ukraine to deter Russia? That Russia wouldn't just lick it's wounds, produce more tanks and ammo, have some new generations hit conscription age and continue the fight afterwards? Or will the peace deal be a Dolchstoss for Ukraine that Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated for Trump in Doha 2020.

This is the real question here.

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No? — frank

What else would someone say? And it's not like China is putting sanctions or limits on Russia because statements like that. China isn't going to go all North Korea, naturally, as it still views that it has to have ties with Europe. It's support of Russia has already alienated European countries.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state? — frank

Nope and It doesn't happen like that.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, NATO and the EU. You see, Russia gains it's objectives is NATO collapses. Then it has military superiority against European states. Do not think that this game is played only by actual conflict with Russia tanks rolling to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What it's aims are for example for my country, Finland, have been said quite clearly: Finland should be as "Finlandized" as it was let's say in the 1970's with Russians having a dominant say in the internal politics of Finland. And it of course "understanding" Russian foreign policy.

These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars — Tzeentch

:rofl:

Yes, you've gone over the few many times over and over again. Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer, the tiny lot.

If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me. — Tzeentch

Good debate is to produce a counterargument based on some evidence, a clear way to say just what is wrong or something like that. Which I try to do, but going over and over again things like the Ukrainian revolution isn't worth wile with you as you stick to the obvious anti-American narrative where everything has happened because of the US and Putin simply has responded to such "outright hostility". But seems for you "debate" is like:

"Fresh evidence" - Yea, typical nonsense when unfortunate facts need to be white-washed — Tzeentch

Do we hear from you what was wrong there? Of course not.

It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. — frank

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars.

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. Iran hasn't declared being at war with the US, even if the US is the Great Satan. Hamas hasn't declared being at war with the US. But Putin has. This won't end in Ukraine.

Usually Eastern Europeans have clarity on the Russian intensions and objectives. One clear and thoughtful document is from Warsaw based think tank Center for Eastern Studies (OSW), and it is worth listening to.



It shows what the West is clearly lacking. Determination to counter Putin and his reconquista.

Repeating the delusional Kremlin lies isn't going to go anywhere. You can defend the rapist and accuse the rape victim as long as you want and try to win people over to your anti-Americanism. Luckily you are quite alone with that.

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite... — Benkei

The guarantees that Germany made that Ukraine wouldn't become a member after the military buildup that was "military exercizes". Or just read Angela Merkels memoirs. Or look at the position of Hungary on Ukrainian NATO membership. Ukraine has gotten only this "member in the future" without actual timetable. Just look at the comparison to the two newest NATO members: Before actual membership application Turkey didn't see any problem in Finland joining NATO (Finland asked it before the application), but once the actual application was in, then the bazaar haggling by Erdogan started just as with Sweden. Yet now Hungary is directly opposed to Ukrainian membership even before there is no application process ongoing with Ukraine. That's a huge difference.

And moreover, what about the Brussel summit of 2021? Did it really iterate that? NO! There is NO talk of when Ukraine would join NATO. Here's what the actual communique said about Ukraine:

First of the situation that Ukraine and Georgia and Moldavia are in:

We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognised borders. In accordance with its international commitments, we call on Russia to withdraw the forces it has stationed in all three countries without their consent. We strongly condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and denounce its temporary occupation. The human rights abuses and violations against the Crimean Tatars and members of other local communities must end. Russia’s recent massive military build-up and destabilising activities in and around Ukraine have further escalated tensions and undermined security. We call on Russia to reverse its military build-up and stop restricting navigation in parts of the Black Sea. We also call on Russia to stop impeding access to the Sea of Azov and Ukrainian ports. We commend Ukraine’s posture of restraint and diplomatic approach in this context. We seek to contribute to de-escalation. We are also stepping up our support to Ukraine. We call for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by all sides, and support the efforts of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group. Russia, as a signatory of the Minsk Agreements, bears significant responsibility in this regard. We call on Russia to stop fuelling the conflict by providing financial and military support to the armed formations it backs in eastern Ukraine. We reiterate our full support to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

And here, about the relationship between Ukraine and NATO:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine. Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international obligations and commitments. We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises.

This simply is the "Ukraine can be a member in the future" -rhetoric given already ages ago WITH NO TIMETABLE. Just commentary that Ukraine has done good, but has still to do work in "wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law" and also "Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine". And this will be supported. The limbo that Ukraine was continuing in 2021. And seems to continue today.

The fact is that Russia demanded a veto say on any new members to NATO. That goes against the founding charter of NATO. Or should NATO add an article to it's charter "new members have to be accepted by Russia in order to join the organization"? The alarm bells for Finnish leadership went off already back then, because Russia was demanding this. Even in the above communique, NATO states that " We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference." NATO would go against it charter if it would have accepted Russia's demands.

It's like Turkey's bid for EU membership: it's not going to get into the EU (if it still wanted), yet the EU won't admit publicly that Turkey does have no possibility of joining.

:100: :up: That's the truth, yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. The real problem is that there's going to be these people in the Trump administration.

And Trump's stance is basically what you said. Hence Putin can be confident and is confident that Trump will give him a similar lucrative peace deal just as Trump gave to the Taleban. There simply is no way in hell that Trump would put pressure on Putin here. Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin? Would he give US cruise missiles (with conventional warheads) to Ukraine to put more pressure on Putin? Does he really think that selling US oil and gas will put pressure on Putin?

Nope. Americans don't care so much for Ukraine and they'll believe the "forever war that only supports the military industrial comples" argument. The cop out will be marketed as a brilliant achievement and any critique of it will be labelled as outbursts of "Trump Derangement Syndrom". Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry.

And nobody responded?

Well, your proof of the apathy in the Dems camp.

Everybody's been angry for the past 10 years. Look how well that's turned out. — T Clark

Not the democratic party leadership. They haven't been angry. Yes, only about Trump have they been angry, but not about how things are.

One has to understand that DNC is now in the opposition where the ruling party has the keys to everything. Do you think Trump will really give a thought on how the GOP wins after him?

Trump has won because his supporters have been these despised underdogs. The laughs and the ridicule that Trump got made him from irrelevant to relevant. That has given them the passion that the Dems have lacked. That first the supporters of the Dems had to go with the line that Biden is perfectly capable of another four years, then it's just announced that Kamala is the candidate. You think that empowers the supporters, get's them to be enthusiastic? Hell no.

First, a general note - We can’t win elections or reach any of our goals without the support of working class people, including white men. The Democratic party is the natural home for them, but we’ve made it so they don’t feel they belong here. — T Clark

This is actually a reason why in general the center left has lost to populism. Or anti-elitist demagogues, which would be more accurate. Not just the Democrats in the US.

Real issues if the Democratic Party really wants to reform.

- Hell with the old octogenarian politicians. Party leadership should be not the age of retired people and the top leadership should be under 50. You can have capable old dogs only in the background and giving up their seats to new generations (to fuck it up, but it's the thought that counts). Octogenarian leadership is like the nearly dead leadership of the Soviet Union waving to the people on the Parade on the Red Square. That's the Dems now!

- Hell with the superdelegates system and lobby groups. That's what Americans really hate. After Trump, Americans truly believe in the "primaries" system and that the parties are so fucking democratic, that new people really can come up even if at odds with the party establishment. If they elect someone like Bernie, then go with Bernie. And if the Bernie totally crashes against a Republican nominee, then that is reality.

- Hell with the "it's their turn" thinking. The party shouldn't be so complacent to have this idea of politicians just waiting for "their turn" like Biden ...or Harris. The idea not to have a primary for the replacement of the totally unfit Biden is the reason why Democrats lost.

- Hell with criticizing of the voters! Oh, they were SO STUPID to believe Trump. Well, yes, many didn't have a better option. Stop believing in the idea that people will vote for you "because the other option is so bad". No, you are not good enough then. If an anti-elitist populist win your supporters vote, it's not the populists or the voters themselves that are the problem, it's fucking you that is the problem then.

- Hell with the mediocre and lame attitude. Be angry.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised. — Banno

This is a rational choice, yet knowing the EU, no country alone can be a real leader... except the US if it would see alliances important (which it won't see in two months). Poland had the Visegrád Group, which was established by Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia (still), Lech Walesa of Poland and the prime minister of Hungary Antall in Visegrad, Hungary. Well, now unfortunately that won't work as Hungary is now pro-Russian (and quite hostile towards Ukraine).

Poland is seen as a possibility for leadership, as here (the American) Foreing Policy writes in the summer of this year:

A third model of leadership is emerging in Poland, where a new government has combined strong rhetoric with vast resources. Five years ago, then-European Council President Donald Tusk linked the future of Ukraine with the future of Europe in a speech at the Ukrainian Rada. Since becoming Polish prime minister last year, he has been very clear about Europe needing to adopt a prewar posture as it prepares for further attempts by the Kremlin to reestablish its former empire. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has been similarly clear in arguing for Europe’s long-term rearmament. He also warned Russia that it “is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around.”

But it will take time still when Poland will be strong, even if their armament program is huge.

During the 1930's the countries between Germany and Soviet Union tried to do some defense cooperation, but that amounted to very little. In the Nordic countries when this came up, Finland saw the existential threat to be the Soviet Union, Denmark to be Germany and Sweden and Norway didn't think that anybody was threatening them.

I think the best way would be simply to form a "group" from NATO countries that would be willing to take seriously the assistance to Ukraine, perhaps UK-Poland leading with the Baltic and Nordic States. Now as all Nordic countries are in NATO, this would be totally possible. I would assume that the UK would like to be taken seriously as it has a difficulty having a new relationship with the EU. It's always difficult to start a relationship when your marked as the other one's "ex". Yet the UK is in NATO and when it's only in NATO, it will want to be an active member.

And notice that Trump won't naturally take the lead in NATO. The old orange man will just repeat his line that NATO members aren't doing their share and that time has moved past the organization and thus doesn't want to do anything with it. Anyway, he will spend his all his time bullying and quarreling about his tariffs that he so dearly loves.

Do you make notes when you listen? It's a good way, especially when listening to a person giving a longer response or a lecture. At work I do that, but not usually. On listening to audiobooks, simply where does one find that +14 hours to listen a book? A very good book you read far more quicker than you listen to,

But naturally while for example driving, your listening to something that you don't have to memorize or your already familiar with, like history. Driving and listening to Kant wouldn't work!

Seems like any counterargument against Tzeentch is "cherry picking". Like things like what the objectives of the Separatists were. Oh yes, if I mention the objectives of one side of the combatants, that's "cherry picking" for you. :lol:

You can no longer rely on the annexation of the four oblasts, since Russia has already proposed to return them to Ukraine in return for Ukrainian neutrality during the Istanbul negotiations, so now you retreat to an even less convincing argument. — Tzeentch

Who again is retreating to an even less convincing argument?

Istanbul negotiations happened in April 2022, when things weren't under control for Russia and the front hadn't been yet stabilized. Then it was perfect stalling tactic for the Kremlin then. Just look at all the Minsk agreements! That now it's a totally different situation doesn't matter to you, because this is the way you can defend Russia. And when those negotiations didn't come through then A HA! Tzeentch finds his Holy Grail: it's all the fault of US and the West, because they pushed Ukraine to continue. Not like the attrocities Bucha mattered. Everything would have been solved then.

Well, let's then look just WHY Istanbul negotiations failed:

According to the Charap and Radchenko account, the Istanbul deal would have been still born as it contains an obligation by the Western powers to provide real security guarantees that oblige them to commit troops in Ukraine if Ukraine was attacked again – something that Kyiv had not cleared with its Western allies during the talks and something they did not want to do.

This version of events tallies with earlier bne IntelliNews reporting, suggesting the proposed security deals the West was supposed to offer, but never actually agreed to ahead of, or during, the talks was the real dealbreaker.

“Even if Russia and Ukraine had overcome their disagreements, the framework they negotiated in Istanbul would have required buy-in from the United States and its allies. And those Western powers would have needed to take a political risk by engaging in negotiations with Russia and Ukraine and to put their credibility on the line by guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. At the time, and in the intervening two years, the willingness either to undertake high-stakes diplomacy or to truly commit to come to Ukraine’s defence in the future has been notably absent in Washington and European capitals,” the authors said.

(See Fresh evidence suggests that the April 2022 Istanbul peace deal to end the war in Ukraine was stillborn)

And how you cherry pick this story:

In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.”

This is the only thing important for you... not the story, just something what one Western politician said. That's all you need in your cherry pie along with the vague promises an US president has made for Kyiv about NATO membership (without there being any acceptance from all the member states about this, actually opposition to this). But who cares about the NATO charter.

After all, what has happened after, or what had happened before, what Putin has said about Ukraine, what he has done in Ukraine, what the Ukrainian territory means for Russia, that doesn't matter as the Istanbul negotiations are the only thing that matters here, because everything, absolutely everything is the fault of the West.

This is simply the Kremlin line that feeds on the self-criticism of the West.

Coming from the person that repeats one single reason for the war. :snicker:

In fact, it's plainly counter-intuitive and pretends that the developments of the war, amongst which a complete rejection of diplomacy by the West, did not significantly impact Russian war goals. — Tzeentch

Look, the obvious war goals were arleady there to anybody to see in 2014. Putin annexed Crimea. Annexed territory. Add there all the rhetoric of how artificial Ukraine as a state is and how it should be part of Russia. And all the focus on Novorossiya. It's mindboggling to say this wasn't obvious before 2022.

This map is from 2015:


Those "separatist" were directly controlled by Kremlin. The war aims have been there for anybody to see for years. Your denial about of this simply is laughable.

And oh yes, NATO enlargement was also a reason.

You're simply cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Really? That I say that NATO enlargement was one reason, but so is also all the stuff the Putin has said, acted, put into law about the annexations of Ukrainian territory and Ukraine being an artificial coutry?

And I'm the one cherry picking?

You are hilarious! :rofl:

The unfortunate thing for you is that the Russians have told us exactly in word and in deed what they want for over a decade - a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch

As they exactly did about the lands they wanted to annex from Ukraine, Novorossiya.

I'm not pretending anything. I myself have said many times that Russia was against NATO enlargement. But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. The major reason for the war and the objectives cannot be put more clearly than Putin did in September 30th 2022.

The fact is that you cannot deny what I say, hence you simply won't acknowledge the obvious and stick to this hallucination that conflict would have ended happily in Istanbul. All the various Minsk agreements and of course, the Budapest memorandum, have been simply peaces of papers Russia uses as toilet paper.

None of that has any meaning, @Tzeentch Face the reality what Putin wants.

You are like someone talking over and over about the Oslo Peace process, contemplating how it's going to be restarted. It cannot restart as Israel has truly changed, we are in a totally different era and the brief period when the conflict could have ended with the Oslo Peace process is over. Permanently.

And anyway, it's extremely likely that Putin simply would have used an agreement reached in Istanbul just for a time to get his military up after the initial failure in getting Blitzkrieg victory. Remember ALL the Minsk agreements? Remember them, @Tzeentch? THEY DIDN'T END THE CONFLICT!

What he has said and done tell it all so clearly. Face reality.

So annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts didn't happen in the echo chamber that @Tzeentch lives in or is somehow meaningless?

On 30 September 2022, Russia unilaterally declared its annexation of areas in and around four Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, parts that Russia didn't and does not yet control.

Putin said Russia has “four new regions”, calling the residents of Ukraine’s occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions “our citizens forever”.

“This is the will of millions of people,” he said in the speech before hundreds of dignitaries at the St George’s Hall of the Kremlin.

“We will defend our land with all our strength and all our means,” he added, calling on “the Kyiv regime to immediately cease hostilities and return to the negotiation table”. In one of his toughest anti-American speeches in more than 20 years in power, Putin signalled he was ready to continue what he called a battle for a “greater historical Russia”, slammed the West as neo-colonial and as out to destroy his country.

But for you this obviously didn't happen, because is worried just about NATO and at the start of the war had talks that didn't go through. Because you really simply don't listen to what Putin says and what he does. Why the denial? I have never denied that NATO enlargement was one reason, simply said that it wasn't the biggest reason and Ukraine couldn't have avoided this conflict just by not being in NATO... which it doesn't belong to. Even without NATO, Putin likely would have tried to grab parts of Ukraine back to Russia, if not all of it. Putin very clearly shows where his objectives are. Some quotes from that September 30th speech:

"We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately end hostilities, end the war that they unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table."

"We are ready for this ... But we will not discuss the choice of the people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. That has been made. Russia will not betray them."

And the reasons, coming again back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union:

"In 1991, at Belovezh Forest, without asking the will of ordinary citizens, representatives of the then-party elites decided to destroy the USSR, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their motherland. This tore apart and dismembered our nation, becoming a national catastrophe ..."

The objective: Great historical Russia for the next generations:

"The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Simply ludicrous to think that a leader saying all the stuff above is just thinking of NATO expansion and wouldn't have an imperialistic agenda. Seldom if ever has it been as evident as this. It's basically a Russian Reconquista.

But to repeat the line that it's all just about NATO enlargement is the disinformation that works wonders for Putin. If Trump comes with his "peace plan" and opts for there being peace with Ukraine out of NATO and the four oblasts now sacred Russian territory forever, then Putin has indeed has succeeded in the a great reconquista! Worth all those lives lost.

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad. — Mr Bee

Because, as you said, he and his voters don't know what tariffs and trade wars do, we are going to see a lot of damage. It's quite inevitable. Just look at the reasons given to the 25% tariffs.

Nothing will change the minds of Trump voters about this. It's like trying to talk in 2016 to Britons that Brexit won't work, that it will create huge problems for the economy, no real benefits will counter it's bad effects and btw the migration to the UK will continue, the EU migrants will just be replace with Third World migrants.

You think any Brexit supporter would have believed you? Of course not!

And the same is here true. Trump won't change. He will choose into his cabinet sycophants and totally obedient yes-men, whoever they are. There won't be any "grown ups" in this administration towing a normal US policy, it really will be at the whims of Trump. Congress simply will not put up with the most bizarre ideas, hence executive orders and foreign policy will be the

Europe has to understand the Trump is a bully for whom appeasement is weakness. He has already made up his mind of Europe and Europeans. Only a Victor Orban will do, everybody else are simply annoying Europeans that one has to be tough with... in the end they will bend over backwards and do flips as the US wants.

The consisent approach to this for Europe is to set it's own goals and stay there. Don't react to Trump's bickering. If Trump makes outrageous demands, just say no and wait for four years. Trying to negotiate as one would with a normal person doesn't work. If Europe gives in, then Trump will just ask for more. Best thing is market European objectives as huge concessions that we have made to the US thanks to Trump. That's enough for Trump.

That's a direct result of choosing the military path, and continuing on the military path will obviously extend this trend probably all the way to Ukraine's total demise. — Tzeentch

Russia chose the military path to increase it's territorial annexations. Denying this and only talking about "NATO Enlargement" as the only cause is pure denial and a huge error, because those what you continue to repeat aren't all the Russian objectives. To gain Ukraine and it's territory is an objective itself and has been absolutely central here. To argue something else is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Russia had gotten it's objective of Ukraine not joining NATO with the 2021-2022 military buildup already, if not earlier. This is totally evident, for example from Angela Merkel's memoirs that she was against NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Yet NATO never could accept a formal veto from an outside party as it would go against it's charter. But a de facto veto was obvious, not only with Hungary opposing, but Germany. And then absolutely everything changed with the large scale attack in 2022.

We hung them out to dry, drip-feeding them weapons and aid in a way that's ensuring their slow demise. — Tzeentch

I agree that the idea of giving Ukraine enough to survive and only that is the cause that makes the prospects of negotiations with Russia now so dire. It simply has been delusional to think that military aid given to Ukraine would mean that Putin would launch WW3. He isn't and the Russian leadership aren't insane and suicidal.

But this is an example where Western politicians have lost the idea of winning on the battlefield, but just to "send messages" with military aid. For them it's a minor issue, one among others. For Putin this war is existential. Once Russia is committed, only the possibility of a total fiasco will force Russia to the negotiation table. But now Putin is totally OK with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldier having been killed or wounded, so ideas that Trump could force him to do anything are whimsical. Hence the only one Trump can pressure is Ukraine.

Ukraine's best chance at independence were the Istanbul negotiations. — Tzeentch

I severely doubt that and besides, a lot has happened after that. Yearning those negotiations that didn't go anywhere is like to yearn for the time of the Oslo Peace Process at the present time in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That moment has passed, it's not turning, things have changed.

If you're still hoping for a victory you need a dosis of reality. — Tzeentch

I'm hoping that Ukraine exists as an independent state now and in the long run.

That won't happen if we stab Ukraine in the back.

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen.

If we want to avoid WW3, we should probably look into our own role in perpetuating the conflict — Tzeentch

The defeatist attitude that will guarantee a victory for Putin.

Biden's current escalatory actions to make peace impossible when Trump has stated he intends to pursue a deal. — Tzeentch

Hoping that Trump will cut a surrender deal to Putin, just like he did with the Taleban?

Well, it's a possibility, unfortunately

Notice who did that? Vichy-France. Showed btw the anti-semitism quite well there also.

But were they bad for an isolationist? Europe's troubles were Europe's troubles. Wars and Holocausts and stuff... on the European Continent. Oh yes, der Führer declared war on you, so even pro-German Charles Lindbergh went to participate in the war and flew P-38 Lightning in the Pacific. But I guess the photo ops with Herman Göring and medals from Germany didn't fly so well afterwards.

(Göring presented Lindbergh with the Service Cross of the German Eagle for his services to world aviation. And also a nice sword as it seems... or just showing it off to a friend.)


But I'm sure Charles Lindbergh would be now rooting for Trump. After all, Lindbergh headed the "America First" committee, and spoke loudly against the war and promoted the isolationist stance as can be seen from a speech by him in 1941:

We have weakened ourselves for many months, and still worse, we have divided our own people by this dabbling in Europe’s wars. While we should have been concentrating on American defense we have been forced to argue over foreign quarrels. We must turn our eyes and our faith back to our own country before it is too late. And when we do this, a different vista opens before us. Practically every difficulty we would face in invading Europe becomes an asset to us in defending America. Our enemy, and not we, would then have the problem of transporting millions of troops across the ocean and landing them on a hostile shore. They, and not we, would have to furnish the convoys to transport guns and trucks and munitions and fuel across three thousand miles of water. Our battleships and submarines would then be fighting close to their home bases. We would then do the bombing from the air and the torpedoing at sea. And if any part of an enemy convoy should ever pass our Navy and our air force, they would still be faced with the guns of our coast artillery and behind them the divisions of our Army.

The United States is better situated from a military standpoint than any other nation in the world. Even in our present condition of unpreparedness no foreign power is in a position to invade us today. If we concentrate on our own defenses and build the strength that this nation should maintain, no foreign army will every attempt to land on American shores.

War is not inevitable for this country. Such a claim is defeatism in the true sense. No one can make us fight abroad unless we ourselves are willing to do so. No one will attempt to fight us here if we arm ourselves as a great nation should be armed. Over a hundred million people in this nation are opposed to entering the war. If the principles of democracy mean anything at all, that is reason enough for us to stay out. If we are forced into a war against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of our people, we will have proved democracy such a failure at home that there will be little use of fighting for it abroad.

The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people. During the last several years I have traveled over this country from one end to the other. I have talked to many hundreds of men and women, and I have letters from tens of thousands more, who feel the same way as you and I.

Most of these people have no influence or power. Most of them have no means of expressing their convictions, except by their vote which has always been against this war. They are the citizens who have had to work too hard at their daily jobs to organize political meetings. Hitherto, they have relied upon their vote to express their feelings; but now they find that it is hardly remembered except in the oratory of a political campaign. These people–the majority of hardworking American citizens, are with us. They are the true strength of our country. And they are beginning to realize, as you and I, that there are times when we must sacrifice our normal interests in life in order to insure the safety and the welfare of our nation. (Charles Lindbergh, address delivered at the America First Committee meeting in New York City, April 23, 1941.)

So few months from that speech the US was in a war.

Oh noooo! Not EuroDisney! It cannot be!!!

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Popeye bombing France:


Ah, it's so lovable when you desperately want to be a huge Canada: an important country, kinda.

You’re right, I didn’t. — T Clark

Then what kind of "going on your own" you meant?

Per Eric Cline, natural disasters including drought and earthquakes appear to have contributed to the Bronze age collapse. The other factors were warfare, and internal social upheaval that may have been the result of class struggle (but we don't really know). Cline believes it was a 'perfect storm' of events. With climate change set to increase stress in the world, we very well may be headed for another collapse. — frank

Simply to have Bronze you had to have trade as tin and copper wasn't found in the same place under one Empire. And then these ancient were basically top down command economies, which were very fragile compared to us.

Yet let's think about just how fragile our World is today. We just experienced a large pandemic that killed at least seven million world wide and about 1,2 million in the US. It was few years ago. Did the society collapse? No. How quickly did we recover? Very quickly. In our cynicism and gloom we often forget just how remarkable our societies are today.

Hence Einstein's famous quote of the next war after WW3 being fought with sticks and stones should really be given more thought. Is it really that after WW3 we literally are fighting with sticks and stones? Hardly. Let's think about if the worst happens and Russia, China and the US have a nuclear war. What happens to New Zealand or Argentina? Their cities won't be destroyed, they won't face radiactive fallout, they have agricultural production to make them self-sufficient. They naturally face a huge ecconomic depression as a large part of the global trade ceases to exist for a while. But will they forget engineering skills or the written language? No, libraries and universities in both countries will exist and so will the division of labor. Many parts in the US would survive intact too, even if large parts would become a nuclear wasteland. The World of Mad Max is an imaginary one and doesn't really portray anything else than what sells to us in movies.

In Antique times the fall was so great, that highly specialized labor had no demand anymore as the system collapsed. Technologies were forgotten. I always refer to this, but I still find it remarkable: from it's height in population, over 1 million people, Rome got to a similar population only in the 1950's. Such a large city was only sustainable during Antiquity with basically North Africa producing also food to Rome and "every road leading to Rome". Once the Vandals had North Africa, farewell large Rome.

If everything transcendently were random and utterly incoherent, then it would be impossible for your brain to intuit, judge, and cognize in a such a way as to have a sufficiently accurate and coherent stream of consciousness for survival — Bob Ross

Would it be so? What if we stumble upon something that is inherently random, but still want to make some "sense" about it and then start imagining patterns where there aren't any. Would our error be truly so bad that it would endanger our survival? Because the other way it's dangerous for our survival: when we fail to see any pattern where there is an obvious pattern, we can then walk in a trap or ambush or utterly fail to see an opportunity. If something effects us that is totally random, we just either "win" by sheer luck or we are extremely unlucky. No use of looking there for a pattern, shit happens.

Now, what these laws are, can only be conditionally mapped, or modeled, by a priori modes of cognizing reality (with mathematical equations and rules of logic being the most fundamental of them all); and so what exactly they are cannot be so described other than mathematically, logically, etc. — Bob Ross

Isn't this a tautology? If humans and animals make models of the surrounding World rationally or by logic, then naturally the only models we make are these rational and logical models. To make an illogical model of the World wouldn't be useful.

The US is relatively isolated from the rest of the world. We have a huge economy and vast amounts of natural resources. If we wanted, we could go it on our own. — T Clark

Sorry to say it, but this is quite delusional. Perhaps you didn't mean "going it on our own" to meaning being totally self sufficient in everything, but let's think about it.

What if all trade between the World and the US would immediately stop and the government would try to move everything to be self reliant:

- the US imports well over 3,8 trillion last year.
- 15% of all your overall food supply that Americans now consume is imported, so that would not be there.
- Major imports are 1) machinery, 2) vehicles and automobiles, 3) minerals, fuel and oil 4) pharmaceuticals
- US is dependent on outside production of rare earths, lithium, kobalt, platinum and nobium. The vast majority of the global mining of these minerals are outside the US in other countries.
- These would severely affect US manufacturing as the whole system of manufacturing is based on international trade and supply routes. The 100% American produced is quite dubious, when you take everything needed into account.
- When you would totally deny imports would very likely lead to similar bans on your exports, which constitutes 3,0 trillion last year.
- As the GDP is something like 29,17 trillion, stopping both imports and exports (6,8 trillion) would immediately mean a loss of -23% of GDP.
- Many millions of workers and professionals would lose their jobs as the export/import sector would cease to exist.
- As there is no trade with you, the dollar would immediately lose it's value as the reserve currency.
- All countries would frantically start altering their trade away from the US, which would at first bring a severe downturn to the global economy, but sooner or later the global economy would recover from the "disappearance" of the US from international trade.
- For investors the US wouldn't at all be a safe haven. Such lunatic economic policies would surely alter the idea of the US being a trustworthy place to invest.

To truly "go on your own" would have similar consequences of having a limited nuclear war. Yeah, it wouldn't kill every American (in fact an all out nuclear war with Russia wouldn't do that either). But the outcome would be an absolute disaster. Losing one fifth of your GDP in a year (which has never happened in US history) would have absolutely devastating consequences for your wealth, for employment and likely for the political stability of the country.

And if you argue that then you could redirect all the unemployed to "home grown" industries, that's not how it works. The economic shock would have aftershocks for a long time and in the end you would be far more poorer than now. To build up new manufacturing takes time and the fact would still be that you would have severely crippled your economy and it wouldn't recover to the level which you enjoyed earlier.

And btw, some countries have tried this, actually. Usually it has resulted the country if it earlier exported agricultural products, then to have famine. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia implemented a strict policy of self-reliance.The Khmer Rouge evacuated totally the capital and rationalized the evacuation as a matter of self-reliance. End result, by some estimates, between 500,000 and 1.5 million of the lives lost between 1975 and 1979 were due to Khmer Rouge–induced famine.

As much as we criticize globalization, a collapse of globalization has absolutely dire consequences. The Bronze Age Collapse was the first collapse of globalization. Another collapse of globalization happened when Antiquity turned into the Dark Ages.

It's totally different to have for example the capability to feed your population in a time of war if the trade routes are cut. You can have this backup, but to go for what the Khmer Rouge tried to get is sheer lunacy, a very dangerous idea. The positive aspects of global trade should be remembered.

No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel. Only we have that capacity. — Patterner

Animals can be jerks. Yet I think the issue is that we have come up with smart the idea of ethics, which we relate only to us.

Legislation was put in place so that it would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to leave, and that's frankly not going to happen. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually I didn't know that, thanks for informing me! That takes care of that.

The interests of the US and these countries are not necessarily the same. — T Clark

The interest for the US is to stay as a Superpower. Whatever Trump thinks, it's the alliances that make the US the sole Superpower.

On a Bird's-Eye View, the numerous wars waged by countries throughout history, killing numerous people, destroying, seems kind of ridiculous. Along that train of thought, deadly conflict comes through as absurd, should never be. — jorndoe

Indeed. War can be seen as ridiculous. The "isolationist" idea of not getting involved in any conflicts, but perhaps still retain a defensive force, seems rational. Yet, and unfortunately, this idea is simply naive and can have unintended consequences.

Let's assume the US as the Superpower and it's alliance gets behind the idea of isolationism. The result is that their actions dramatically lower the threshold of states to engage in wars. For example, why wouldn't Venezuela simply annex Guyana or half of it (the Essequibo territority), if nobody would lift a finger about it? Why wouldn't Peru and Equador go back to having border wars? Or Columbia finally getting that American contraption of Panama back to itself? And I took just possible conflicts in the American Continent as an example here.



There is a logic to why the idea of Westphalian sovereingty should be upheld, just as the UN charter. Both higher the cost of starting a war of annexation politically and economically. We really will go back as a civilization, when these ideas are thought to be irrelevant and we simply accept that annexations are OK to happen (or they aren't a problem for us). Classic imperialism will come back on a wider scale as there will be many more actors playing the "Great game".

As I've said, the idea that the US behind every conflict there is, makes people then to make a disastrous mistake in believing that a) the World would be a more peaceful place without US involvement or that b) it doesn't matter to America how much conflict there is in the World.

The simple fact is that if Central and South America would be economically prosperous and growing economies, why would there be an incentive for migration from those countries to the US? And if more countries in the American Continent simply collapse, what do you think that will result in the situation in the borders or coast of the US? Same thing is true for the EU. How Africa and the Middle East develop does have an effect on how many refugees try get into Europe.

The outcome we have already seen. A conflict that killed over 5 million people in Africa that had many of the Continents states involved with, is still totally absent from our knowledge as it didn't involve the US. There are several conflicts going around today that we aren't talking about, because the US and the West have taken no interest in them. Should we take interest? Interest, yes, military intervention, perhaps not. But the issue would to prevent the conflicts to happen in the first place. Rapidly economically growing countries where trade flourishes aren't usually starting wars or collapsing into civil wars.

The point about mathematics and logic also seems to be right. But it does seem that our capacity to learn all those human skills and practices has a biological basis – over-developed cortex, opposable thumb, bipedalism. — Ludwig V

The point that @Patterner also made of our brains being different might be the real difference, but even that might be smaller than we think. Bipedalism and our hands are reason why we can use so extensively tools. Also it has been studied that Homo Sapiens could have more children that lived up to adulthood than our hominid brothers. Yet the real question is hypothetical, could for example the Neanderthal been capable of creating a civilization? They could speak, at least a bit and could make fire, which obviously shows their sophistication. To dismiss the possibility outright based on biological differences we cannot do as it's now purely a hypothetical question.

And let's face the fact that if humans would have remained as hunter gatherers, there simply couldn't be so many of us and we would have molded the Earth as we have now. Without agriculture there wouldn't excess food production and hence there couldn't be division of labor, job specialization. Agriculture and trade and writing are simply crucial for our development to what we are now, especially if it has anything to do with our society or our scientific thought.

Agriculture got started just somewhere around 11000 BC and writing is even a more frequent invention, so what has made us different from the hunter gatherers (whom many of our extinct fellow hominids were too) has happened only a while ago.