The video of Trump berating Churchill is great. See If Trump was President in 1940

That would really be Trump in 1940. But the intelligence services of the Third Reich weren't so good as Soviet/Russian intelligence services have been.

Right, forced conscription. No elections. Opposition parties banned. Nationalized media. “Ukrainians themselves decide”. — NOS4A2

Well, I live in a country that has "forced conscription", where in my constitution it is written that "All Finnish citizens have a duty to defend their country". We, just like Sweden, have the idea of "Total defense". That's what you need to deter a bully next to you that will interfere in your matters and will try to dominate you. Worked against Stalin, will work against Putin. The doesn't have to have such, because you have oceans on both sides and Canada and Mexico.

And Ukraine's constitution declares that no elections under wartime. So you just go with meaningless Kremlin lines there of Zelenskyi being a dictator. Russia doesn't have free elections even during peacetime.

All of that is deep-state dinner-theater. — NOS4A2

For you, because you don't believe in your country. Or at least the country you moved away from (the US). If you believe that grifters like Elon Musk and Donald Trump will somehow save your country, when the don't give a rats ass to the values which America stood for, that's your problem. Luckily, as we have seen on this forum, not all Americans share your ideas. Yet when you think that your own government is the real enemy, then it's totally understandable that you believe the Kremlin lies. Unfortunately Putin isn't your friend.

Russians have been saying for decades that they would intervene should Nato integration sharpen ethnic divisions and create civil war in Ukraine, which it did. — NOS4A2

And they intervened also in Moldova, which by Constitution cannot join a military alliance. Sorry, but you cannot ignore the ugly truth that this is also an imperial enterprise, the reconquista of Novorossiya, because Ukraine is an artificial country. Russia would have done this and had bases in the Baltics already for a long time if there wouldn't have been a NATO.

Not a single one of them mentioned a return of the Russian empire. — NOS4A2

So you are totally clueless about this. Start with Putin's "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" speech. That's Putin's Mein Kampf where he spills out what is the right future for Ukraine. And then there's ample amount of Russian propaganda about this intended for the Russian people and how Russia will conquer back Novorossiya, New Russia, as it was called.

A picture of a woman holding the "Correct" map in 2015:

Independent and sovereign states, eh? Which law has supremacy, Finnish law or EU law? — NOS4A2

You understand the difference between a confederacy or an union. I've always said that the EU is a confederacy of independent states desperately trying to be an union. So in the end, it's Finnish law. Just as it is if the country is us or Hungary or Spain etc.

We declined the fantasy of taking back our old possessions since the day we lost them all! :rofl: — javi2541997

But the absurdity of it to us Europeans does tell about the insanity of Putin. An European politician saying similar things and we would think he's lost his marbles. Spaniards understand that they have lost their empire. The British understand that they have lost their empire. What we now have to show the Russians that they too have lost their empire and the they will just do enormous harm to themselves in trying to regain back that empire.

If every European nation would pick from it's history when it was the largest and declare this to the "be the natural state" and then demand that these territories belong to them and any state now existing in them are purely "artificial", we easily understand what kind of a Pandora's box we would open. And we understand that EU was formed because many millions of Europeans had died in two World Wars. Nowhere else has there been such a massacre of people. It's because of those millions of dead that the idea of European integration did achieve so much.

Yet people like Putin (and Trump) don't see it as this way. And a lot of appeasers come to proclaim that these insane visions are "realpolitik".

I'm not. I think it's easy to speak support and much harder to actually do it and get consistent support for it over a longer time period (which we'll need). You'd think this sort of thing transcends party politics but it's very clear in the Netherlands they don't. — Benkei

It will be a coalition of the willing. Always. And that's fine with me.

I wouldn't like an EU that would behave like an imperial entity. Europe doesn't need the integration that Napoleon or Hitler attempted to do. Besides, a confederation of democratic states will always look like a laughable crowd of chickens to an autocrat.

BTL Comments are open and should be interesting to read... — Amity

Marco Rubio, Trump’s obsequious secretary of state, spoke revealingly last month about his vision of a 21st-century world dominated by the US, Russia and China, and divided into 19th-century geopolitical spheres of influence. It was necessary to rebuild US relations with Moscow, Rubio argued, to maintain this imperious tripartite balance of power. — The Guardian - Simon Tisdall

This is as stupid as the Project for the New American Century was that was cherished by the neocons, who then actually got into power. The problem that the decisive diplomatic and military victory that the US had with liberating Kuwait went to the heads of the neocons. So they thought they really could mold the Middle East into something new. Because the US foreign policy didn't have to anticipate any countermove from the Soviet Union anymore, the sanity of US foreign policy was lost... at least in the Middle East. Now you have an even more insane MAGA-thinking dominating the US. This kind of thinking is really as damaging as was going for Iraq, that didn't have any nuclear weapons.

If Rubio truly talks about Russian domination, what would the Russians dominate? What is he letting Russia and China dominate in this surrender deal? I think Europe has a say to this and naturally threatened the EU and other members of NATO will find each other. This kind of thinking is the worst kind of defeatism that one can think of. Why alienate your friends and bow in front of your enemies? You think Putin that has Trump on the ropes will genuinely have the respect? No, they have a word for this in Russian, a "useful idiot".

And China? Likely China wanting to be in good terms with Europe will resent this kind of division. And Russia can go along with these warm ties as long as it divides the US from it's former allies.

This all is possible, because the MAGA-crowd believes their worst enemy is the US government itself. So they have to decapitate themselves by attacking the "Deep State". And because Biden and Obama were for NATO, it's natural that Trump is against it.

But then, we do have the madman right next to us with a country, which has only the idea of being an empire.

I'm a long time reservist and been in the voluntary training of reservists for decades. I remember once sitting down with fellow reserve officers and non-coms who have dedicated quite a lot to voluntary work for the military and said: "I guess none of us would be here, if on our Eastern border there would be Canada." They all agreed. None of them likely would have gone to the military in that position. I definately wouldn't have, because I thought it would be a nightmare for me. Well, it wasn't, especially afterwards.

And this is the absolute question for the Dutch, the country is one of most strategic places for Europe with having the important artery of Rotterdam. Yet you have all around quite nice countries. Belgium isn't bellicose towads you and the Germans aren't either coming. Spanish are even less are thinking of taking back their old possessions. When the Soviet Empire had it tanks in East Germany, that was close enough for you to have a large army and conscription. It was easy to see the threat. Now it's far more difficult, because Russia isn't threatening the territory of the Netherlands. But it will try to attack and dissolve the EU just as it tries to dissolve NATO. And that does create a threat.

In my view Netherlands has been one country, that has really put it's cards into the existence of NATO. When Elon Musk is wanting the US to ditch NATO and UN (which the latter would have tremendous effect on UN decisions towards the Palestinian conflict), this is a new situation. The dramatics won't end up these weeks that we have seen now.

Perhaps it's the contrast to what comes out of America, but European leaders seem to be dealing with the new situation quite well and understanding the situation. At least I'm hopeful.

I think Trump will organize a yalta-like moment where he sits down with Putin and maybe XI and/or Modi too, to settle the war, come up with the beginnings of a new plan for Europa and the middle east with less involvement of the US, so they can re-locate forces to the pacific to where the balance of power has shifted. — ChatteringMonkey

Likely Trump doesn't understand just how against this goes his allies, if we can call them those, who aren't for this kind of decision making. Above all, any meeting of this kind would be either a nonevent or at worst, a total disastrous for the US as Trump is really a bad negotiator. If he would have written himself the Art of the Deal, he maybe a negotiator, but he isn't. Everything from surrender deal made to the Taleban to the castigation of Zelenskyi shows this.

They will leave the war, whether Europe agrees with it or not. And then Europe will be faced with a decision to either continue the war, and face possible consequence of twarting Trump, or go along with it and agree to peace on his terms. — ChatteringMonkey

And just what will Trump leave? This isn't and hasn't been anymore the question of just Ukraine. I think Europe will leave an open door for the US to come back, if it wants, but otherwise the thing is written on the wall. Only Trump can withdraw from NATO, but now Europe has to go alone. Nobody would think that Trump would lift a finger to defend for example the Baltic States, which is the reasoning that Europe has to restructure it's defenses. Naturally it can say it's just doing what Trump wants when rearming

Now there's a lot of support for continuing the war, but I don't expect that to last when the consequences of it start to dawn on the more pragmatic elites in Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

It's not a question of pragmatism, it's a question how close Russia is to you. Let's remember that Russia wants NATO to withdraw from the Baltics, from Sweden and Finland, from Poland, from Romania. So for a lot of NATO countries the support for Ukraine and spending more on defense is quite pragmatic and logical approach. Not perhaps for Portugal.

You already are seeing how closely is the UK and Norway working with EU countries, so what is forming here is a "coalition of the willing". Likely the UK with France and Germany and Northern Europe, the Baltic States and Poland. Naturally all these countries want to keep the US in NATO, but you never know what agent Trumpov will do.

And really you can look at it in two ways, 1) a bunch of illiberal autocrats carving up the world that must be opposed at all cost, or 2) the beginnings of a more stable organisation of the region without the US. — ChatteringMonkey

How about a synthesis: an unstable World were bunch of illiberal autocrats try carving up the World and others desperately trying to hold on to a rules based order.

I think we should stop fighting the geo-political wave lest we drown, and try to ride it in a direction that actually has some potential. — ChatteringMonkey

We aren't drowning, even Ukraine isn't yet. Those who think the MAGA-movement is the new geo-political wave might be the ones that will do the drowning, thanks to the wisdom of their awesome leaders like Musk, Trump and Vance.

This is the reality of their immense brilliance:

Elon Musk, who holds no official cabinet position in the administration, wrote on social media that he agrees the United States should leave NATO and the United Nations.

On Saturday, Musk quote-tweeted “I agree” to a post from someone who wrote, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.”

People really should wake up to see how insane these morons are. I can easily agree with Friedrich Merz that NATO won't last to it's next summit in the summer. Or perhaps there Trump walks out of it. Something that is totally possible.

.

Maybe you could be right. Big imperial powers tend to become unstable too over time and split or dissolve, it's not certain for example that the US will still be there in a few decades the way they are going at the moment. — ChatteringMonkey

You have now a former Superpower dissolving it's power and the other Superpower shedding it's power by it's own actions.

The first example is of course Putin's Russia, with the Russian dictator hell bent on correcting the greatest tragedy of his lifetime, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and trying to reinstate Russian power to it's former glory. He gambled heavily and won big with a bold military operation of annexing Crimea. But then, as usual, he thought that it was true what his underlings eagerly said to him, that the rest of Ukraine would be a walkover, that he could quickly take Kyiv and install a puppet regime there and annex parts of Ukraine to create again Novorossiya. Then Russia would be back on it's former glory and could deal with Europe.

Well, the luck of the gambler change and he was mired into a large conventional war.

The second example is far more curious, and I think never has happened in history. Simply put it, the two power sharing parties in the US have always have their "fringe" groups, but with Trump, populists with ties to the alt-right took over the Republican party. In the first Trump administration, when Trump hadn't so much thought he would win, this fringe wasn't ready and many parts of the administration was manned with conventional conservative Republicans. But after January 6th, Trump has gained total control of the party and molded the old Republican party to a MAGA crowd, which has no resemblence with being conservative and old school Republican. Nobody will question him, because anybody that would oppose him is threatened with a MAGA candidate opposing him or her in the primaries. And better to lose in the general election, than be banished by the MAGA tribe.

And with power going to his head, Trump as the "Master of the Universe" starts with royal decrees called executive orders (because why would he try anything as difficult and time consuming as passing legislation) to mold the US and the World to his liking. Make Gaza a resort! Annex Greenland and Panama, make Canada the 51st state of the US, have a drug-war in Mexico! And then of course, have quickly a peace in Ukraine and get that Nobel-prize, just like Obama. And do deals with Russia.

And the asset and his handler have a wonderful relationship as Trump will help Putin from the quagmire that Putin is in Ukraine and Trump can be lured to believing that he will get lucrative deals from Russia. If Trump fell for those talks of having hotels in Moscow earlier, he surely will fall for Russia deals worth billions and billions of dollars.

This will alienate the European allies of the US, which Trump sees no importance in valuing. They, perhaps with the exception of Hungary, talk of those values that Trump's enemies, Obama and Biden, talked so much about, like international rules based order and the stuff. Hence in his ignorance, Trump will push away the former allies of the US. Trump simply doesn't understand how irritating is for someone like Musk and Vance supporting Germany's AfD. It is similar to what Putin did in the US. Now some might argue that Trump can easily change his stance, but I disagree. He has never said anything negative of Putin, ever.

Yet it's always the ineptness of Trump that will backfire here. I gather that there's not going to be the Trump peace in Ukraine, just as the new shared friendship with Russia won't become the success story that Trump think it will be. Trump has already started the smear campaign against Ukraine.

And anyway, Trump's popularity will fall with the economy, which is heading likely to a recession. But even if then Trump has to focus on the domestic economy, he has already done a huge disservice to the US.

Looks like we can go it alone after all. — Punshhh

Yes. Hopefully we will just get to have that will and not buy the MAGA-American defeatism.

Some countries have helped more Ukraine with what they have, than others:


The truth is a war against Russia is totally winnable in the sense that you don't have to surrender. Japan, Poland and my country have shown it.

:smile: :

In effect, though, what the EU and NATO are doing is sacrificing their own economies and Ukrainian soldier’s lives on the altar of what amounts to political theater. — NOS4A2

Wrong. Ukrainians themselves decide how long they will fight. If they want to continue the fight for their independence, we can give them the weapons.

We know none of this is about democracy, freedom, human rights and other verbal claptrap — NOS4A2

Wrong, this is about those values and the independence of sovereign states and defense of the Russian reconquista Putin has started. And Putin would have started that with or without NATO. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history, remember?

or else it would have raised a huff when the US ousted the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine, causing a civil war. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. The Ukrainian revolution wasn't a US controlled ouster (like Operation Ajax), but a uprising that Ukraine has had many. That not even the Donbass rebels wanted this thug back tells how unpopular the leader was. (After all, wouldn't it had been credible for them to have Yanukovych as their leader?)

We know it isn't some principled stand against Russian expansionism or meddling — NOS4A2

It is a stand against Russian expansionism and meddling. So wrong again, NOS.

because the EU has been trying to annex Ukraine for years, for the sole purpose of exploiting it for grain and fuel. — NOS4A2

Lol. Going off the far end here? Nations can send in their applications if they want to join. And even in the negotiations, then can view it that it's not worth it. Just like, well, Norway did. Hilarious to see EU as an Great power, as everybody knows its a confederation of quite independent states.

We know it isn’t about sovereignty because the EU is supranationalist. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. For members like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, it genuinely is about sovereignty. It starts from things that Russia demands to have a veto on what actions as sovereign states can European countries do. Like to join EU or to join NATO. That kind of sovereignty issues.

So all this preening comes at the expense of the reality. — NOS4A2

Your the one living in the Trump coocoo-echo chamber.

Hell, only one country involved in that war attacked EU jurisdiction when it sabotaged those pipelines, and oddly enough it’s the same country the snivelling bureaucrats there wish to fund. — NOS4A2

Russia is actively cutting cables in the Baltic (Gulf of Finland), just some kilometers off where I live, so...

As you live Canada, why don't you go to the local pub there wearing your MAGA hat and ask how eager they are to join the US as the 51st state.
.

I totally understand that the US is playing a risky game because they might still very much need allies to preserve their superpower status. But in the current predicament they clearly privilege those which are proven to be helpful and faithful to the US’s struggle for supremacy, then it’s matter of European people’s taste: Netanyahu, Starmer, or Salvini? — neomac

Yeah,

Why don't you start with the allies that have contributed soldiers that have participated in the wars you have fought? Wouldn't they be the ones that are important? Or you want those allies that won't do anything, but praise your President? Guess then your most helpful and faithful allies are Bibi and Victor Orban, which the former naturally hasn't ever contributed forces to your wars, but you contribute troops to even today. And why doesn't Trump ask the billions back from Bibi then?

In fact, just in Afghanistan, Denmark suffered the second most casualties compared to the population, which is quite small.

Number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan
Country Deaths Population (2010) Deaths per million
1.USA 2,461* 309 million 7.96
2. Denmark 43 5.5 million 7.82
3.Georgia 32 4.4 million 7.27
4.UK 457 63 million 7.25
5.Estonia 9 1.3 million 6.92
6.Canada 159* 34 million 4.68
7.New Zealand 10 4.4 million 2.27
8.Norway 10 4.9 million 2.04
9.Australia 41 22 million 1.86
10.Latvia 4 2.2 million 1.82

So how is Trump valuing Denmark as an ally and the commitment the small country has made? He wants to buy or annex parts of it, and hasn't refrained from even using military force. In that Trump shows his real face.

Don't ever think that this is normal or belittle the past administrations that they too would be as "transactional" as Trump. For the MAGA crowd, those are the "Deep State". This really isn't normal behavior anymore.

I think that in the US most people and politicians (left or right leaning, it doesn’t matter) have finally converged on the idea that the US can’t afford anymore to overstretch: overwhelming debt for military expenditure, dispersing resources around the world in geopolitical arena without significant return of their political, military, economic investment while enemies and allies grow fatter and hostile toward the US. So now the US is betting on the fact that neither Europeans nor Russia can really profit much from the US downsizing their presence in Europe to threaten the US strategic interests (also in Europe) in the foreseeable future, at least by comparison with China. Russia and Europe look now too weak to challenge Trumps’ game, and their weakness can be played against one another. — neomac

But this doesn't make sense. Fine if you want to downside your military, if you want to go back to the US, be the proverbial isolationist, why then attack your allies? Why go so blatantly and so clearly on the side that is and has been hostile to you? Why vote in favour of Russia and North Korea when even China abstained from the vote in the UN? Why repeat Kremlin talking points? And why then this bizarre ideas about Trump Gaza? Why the attempt to annex Greenland and Panama? The US behavior under Trump is not something what you describe above.

Above all, is Elon cutting dramatically the American military to be half of it's size? Of course not.

And the US people and the politicians? I don't think that they have converged to this idea at all. If they would, then you could post me ample amount of speeches and commentary that this would be the case.

the US must avoid to overstretch, must contain China, both European countries and Russia must be more instrumental to the US strategic interests than the other way around, and at this point the US has greater leverage over European countries and Russia. — neomac

What leverage the US has over Russia? Trump has surrendered the position that everybody know how you deal with Russia, from a position of strength. It has thrown away it's own cards and become an subservient to Russia in pushing the agenda what Russia wants. Before the negotiations have even started, it has accepted the major Russian points that Putin has made. So idiot Vance tells that these arguments that Putin has made are "reality". Well, that Ukraine would be fighting a war still after 3 years of the conventional attack wasn't "reality" for anyone except the will of the Ukrainian people.

Sorry, neomac, I truly respect your views and you are informed about these issues, but this isn't your typical administration that has long term objectives and clear thinking of what it is going to do. There is this urge to see some logical reason behind everything, but you have to understand that one really big possibility is that there is none.

Trump is the key to understand everything here. It's so simply.

Because just look how actually thoughtful and visionary someone like Marco Rubio was before Putin invaded in 2022. (Notably you can see a person who is now a the secretary of defense in his former position in the video). Rubio understood that Russia would attack Ukraine and Rubio had been a very pro-Ukrainian hawk. Here, before the 2022 invasion, he was saying that Ukraine has to be armed. Here's a blast from the past:



Hence this isn't some new insight that the political establishment has. This is just the political establishment coping with the whims of Trump. And Trump thinks he is the Master of the Universe, so he goes on with a quick surrender of Ukraine, Trump Gaza and other crazy stuff.

I don’t think that Trump’s interest is to leave Europe. He wants Europe to turn into submissive clients, more responsive or pro-active in complying with the US demands: you want security? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). You want our market open to your products? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). Sort of a racketeering strategy, which is the other face of the wonderful peaceful multi-polar world which European pacifists were so badly wishing for. — neomac

He might genuinely be so stupid as he comes through his rhetoric and actions, which will just end up in the dismantlement of American power in a very rapid way. Note that Europeans have already seen where this is going. Friedrich Merz said that Europe has to be independent of the US and isn't sure if NATO will be around for the next NATO summit in the summer.

Likely it will be around in the end of June, but the Hague is a great place for Trump to leave NATO.

for Russia the destruction of EU and NATO must be very much functional to weaken the grip of the US in Europe, which is the superpower against which Russia tries to define its hegemonic status. — neomac

This is exactly their agenda. Why the US doesn't see this a hostile intent is beyond me. But I guess too much of "culture war" and too much of the idea that the "Deep State" in the US is the real enemy blurs people from seeing those who really have hostile intent.

If American nationalists wish to keep the US as the strongest superpower, which they most likely do, then Russia can be very much instrumental to contain China (and Iran to make Israel happy!). This likely includes the idea of keeping China and Europe separated. The idea of using Russia to counter China as the biggest competitor to the US supremacy is e.g. what Mearsheimer kept suggesting roughly since the beginning of this conflict. — neomac

And this is so the real insanity, which just show the extreme hubris and utter ignorance and delusions of these "American nationalists".

Perhaps they in their fantasies think of an "Kissinger moment" when Nixon went to China and the Americans enjoyed that "they" had breached the Communist states. Well, that breach happened because Mao was Stalinist and Soviet Union moved away from Stalinism with the two countries even having a border war.

What this friending of Russia, in order to "separate China", will do is for the US just loose it's largest and most trustworthy ally. Allies that really have designed their armed forces to be part of NATO. The trust has already been breached by Trump. Trump has through his actions made it totally clear that it won't stand with Europe and Europe has to go it's own way. The "Europe having to pay" for it's share of the common defense is now only a fig leaf that certainly the Europeans will repeat diplomatically. But they do understand that Trump and Vance don't give a shit about Ukraine and don't give shit about the Transatlantic alliance. Far too liberal in their view. Biden and Obama were liked in Europe, so fuck those people. So the real division here done is an effort to break up the Atlanticism. The US is already an untrustworthy ally.

Besides, these "American nationalists" seem to be totally incapable of seeing this from the Russian perspective. Why on Earth would Russia be against China here? What benefit would have to have hostile relations with it's largest trade partner and a country that is shares a very long border? It's China who has helped Russia here, not the US.

Putin will happily lure these suckers into breaking up their own alliances with empty promises.

Here's a great interview from Gabrielus Landsbergis, a former Latvian foreign minister, who clearly tells the situation as it is now. He gives insight just why some countries (like France) is against the using of Russia's frozen assets to help Ukraine. The reason is that China and Saudi Arabia are against this, which itself is understandable as for these countries such a precedent would be bad. Also the Landsbergis compares of just how little the aid to Ukraine has been compared to how costly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were. The assistance to Ukraine is counted in few hundred billion, those wars in the Global War Against Terror cost is in the trillions both.

He’s still done more than any of the Euro bureaucrats, and he’s only been in office a month. — NOS4A2

Done much for Putin! Otherwise, he has done shit about any peace, made actual peace talks worse as he is just giving everything on a platter to Putin. Enough of this silly Trump "wants peace" bullshit.

Russian stocks going up anticipating the normalization of ties. Trump doing his best for Russia!

The Russian stock market is up 11.1% since the start of the year.
"In focus are the phone talks between the presidents of Russia and the United States, as investors increasingly hope for geopolitical de-escalation," Sberbank analysts said in a note.
Russia's sanctioned corporations such as gas giant Gazprom, whose shares were hit by the loss of the European gas market, as well as dominant lender Sberbank and liquefied natural gas producer Novatek led the market rally.

Perhaps it's time to use Occam's razor.

Nope, nobody is creating this as another smokescreen to keep both the public and Trump distracted. It might become a dystopia, but nobody's building for it to be so.

This all is the doing of Trump's and Vance's erratic behavior when Trump is surrounded by yes-men who take at heart anything the Emperor thinks one day. The whole argument of there being "a method to the madness" and Trump playing a 4D-chess are just hopeful dreams that this would end in something better. It isn't. It's an old man with a short attention span thinking he can do nearly anything he wants.

Americans should really wake up to the enormous damage being done now by Trump. If you really cheer now for Europe to "take care of it's own security", you should understand that it means that you the alliance is breaking apart thanks to Trump. This isn't about "Europe paying it's share" because there isn't going to be an alliance. Trump has no intention of strengthening the alliance. He really doesn't need NATO. When your visionary vice-President argues that Putin's Russia isn't a threat to Europe, his ignorance is quite set (as is his defeatism). When they intervene in the elections of European countries and try to push political parties of their making, that is a sign of outright hostility. You cannot hide it.

For Trump and Vance their actual enemy is liberal Europe, all these countries that have thought about being allies of the US and in defense of a rules based international order. Not Russia. And since not every country is lead by Victor Orban and Bibi Netanyahu, there are many of these "allies" they actually hate. This hatred is quite evident to see, actually. For these it's "Freedom of speach" values hurled at them, for Russia it's the new "realpolitik" of never criticizing Putin and telling Kremlin lines/lies. And trying to negotiate a peace on behalf of Russia.

Americans really should wake up and notice where Trump is steering your country into.

I think it’s power and praise. A Nobel prize would be nice. Plus war is costly and unpopular. He’s driven by media, as well, and can read the writings on the wall. He likes money too, of course, but I don’t think that’s a major factor here. — Mikie

Well, think of Elon and Trump. Elon gave him a lot of money to his campaign. Without Elon, he likely wouldn't be in the White House. So how he behaves towards Elon shows how he bows for money.

Power has gone to his head. What else could you say about the Mar-a-Gaza idea or the annexation of Greenland (even if that was already floated in the first Trump administration).

Next thing might be that NATO dies. Now people would like to think that this might be an outburst like France leaving NATO for a while and then coming back. But the way Trump handles these issues, I'm not sure. It really might be the last days of NATO, as Stavridis here says.



Only if the Americans would wake up to what disasters Trump is making, but likely that won't happen. MAGA crowd will cheer as Trump dismantles the US.

Next we will have the trade wars. You can just guess how that trade war will reinforce the current break up.

Let’s not forget that just this week, the US refused to endorse a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion.

Trump is to all intents a Kremlin asset now. — Wayfarer

Yes he is. Putin likely has dangled deals of hundreds of billions to American corporations to Trump, likely with few billions to Trump to pocket himself. Somebody (I don't remember who) commented that likely the math involved here with the demands that Ukraine has to pay are in similar ball range (as Trump confuses these things). The priority here is the normalization of relations and Putin getting a deal that he wants: The peace Putin would be OK with are Russia getting also the parts of the Oblasts that aren't in Russian control, Ukraine not in NATO and without security guarantees. Perhaps "Euro-peacekeepers" that can be bullied around like peacekeepers are bullied (like actors like Israel), but no serious military capability for Ukraine. And of course Zelenskyi thrown a way and a possible Putin puppet to replace him.

It’s good that Trump wants peace. — Mikie

Unfortunately I think you are wrong.

This is the lie Trump tells to us, the window dressing of his dubious objectives. What Trump wants is money. And Putin likely has promised him money. Promises of money are enough for Trump. That's the only reason why Trump would so recklessly, so enthusiastically try to force everything down the throat of Zelenskyi. That would explain the ambush of Zelenskyi.

Anybody, including Trump, just wanting for the deaths to stop, wouldn't go on to attack one side of the negotiation the way that Trump did.

Russia will keep the territory they annexed and there will be a guarantee of no NATO membership — Mikie

Russia actually wants the Oblasts that it doesn't totally control. Remember that Russia has already annexed them, so for Putin they are already part of Russia. That territory isn't negotiable. Ukraine did push Russian out of the Western side on Dnipro (Dnieper), yet the oblasts that Russia has annexed are situated also on the Western side. This would be a huge defensive difficulties to a post-peace treaty Ukraine.

They’re not going to win even with US backing. — Mikie

Don't be a defeatist.

Russia lost in Afghanistan.
Russia lost to Poland.
Russia lost to Japan.

Russia can have these military defeats and has to back down. It has happened. With a true backing of Ukraine this could a possibility. Before it would happen, Russia would negotiate for peace.

Even puny Finland all alone without such backing as Ukraine has, could get a peace deal in the Winter War, because Stalin was nervous that he could face French and British troops in Finland. They were intended to come here (in the end they were used in Norway). And this is the reality one has to see here: Russian will negotiate of peace only if it's really preferable to continuing the war. Hence Ukraine, if it would get a peace negotiation, it should come from a position of strength. Ukraine isn't yet collapsing. But thanks to the help of Trump to Russia, it might in future.

In general the feeling I get is that these people don't care about the fate of Ukraine or Europe in the near future because they're imagining that once they've remade America, the rest of the world will either follow or cease to be relevant. — Echarmion

If they wouldn't care, why then the hostility? No, really. Vance and Trump have absolutely no intension to be on the side of Ukraine... or on Western Europe. They want to cozy up with Russia and that's why the attack and the hostility. They are pressuring Ukraine to take what Russia wants, hence they are here doing Putin's bidding.

When you throw somebody under the bus, you have to show that the person earned it, had it coming, that he's the bad guy. It has to be Ukraine's fault.

And it will be worse, because Europeans won't so clearly throw Ukraine under the bus. This will irritate Trump even more, and likely the next thing will be NATO alliance itself. As John Bolton has said, Trump has wanted to exit NATO during his previous administration. I totally believe this. It think it's going to happen, because Putin can play Trump so well.

That is the ultimate goal what Putin wants, and Trump is doing his best to do that.

I do agree with the sentiment, but Zelensky had a purpose for going to the White House, and he failed. Maybe there was no actual way to succeed. But this was certainly not the optimal way for that to go, even taking into account the personalities of Trump and Vance. — Echarmion

Do understand that the US under Trump isn't in support of Ukraine, Trump is against Ukraine. Ukraine is the problem. Ukraine won't bow down to what Russia wants, so Zelensky has to go!

You criticize and attack your enemies, you don't speak anything bad about those who you support. This cannot be more clear now. There is no other way to see it.

Hence there was no way for an actual deal to succeed, because Ukraine isn't yet in a position that it's defense would be collapsing. If there would have been a deal to be made, then there would have been an actual meeting behind closed doors, not ambush like we witnessed. Now Trump will punish Ukraine, because he is for Russia.

What Trump will push for the peace deal that Putin wants, a deal that Putin wouldn't otherwise get. People have to wake up on this. Trump won't lift a finger to anything that Putin does. That's the real problem. Europe has to arm itself, because the US is now a willing sidekick of an Putin, whose appetite will grow now very much. This won't end with Ukraine.

Trump is getting us to a situation where it isn't just about Ukraine anymore. Putin can surely taste the blood in the water now.

One of the features of Trump's MAGA (Make America Grotesque Again) is that he is slashing a lot of government programs that aim to assist the least advantaged to achieve--not well-being, but something more than the flat-out minimum. Landing an apartment in public housing, for instance, is a huge step up from living on the street, even if it is a but spartan, The minimal welfare payment for single, childless adults is painfully low, but if one can qualify for other programs (like Medicaid, public housing, and food assistance) it doesn't lead to lavish well-being, but it's better than untended disease, living in a box, and eating from garbage cans. — BC

It's not the poorest and the unemployed that make a revolution, it's those that do have work and do own a home.

Unemployment or homelessness is a personal stigma. People in the most dire situation aren't going to make a revolution. I remember so well once in my youth when my country was hit with one of it's histories hardest economic depressions visiting the Central Bank and an economist saying bluntly to us students the reality: "The unemployed won't revolt." And he was right. The highest unemployment, higher than during the Great Depression, and they didn't revolt. The administration went on through the worst economic crisis and the growth path was worse. No revolt from the masses of unemployed.

How did the Ukrainian delegation, with Zelensky at the head, let this happen? — Echarmion

Trump and Vance are in Putin's camp and talking heads for the Russian dictator. How else would it go? Zelensky has to be honest to his people, who are fighting this war.

I just hope that Western Europe has enough backbone and stand up against Trump and support Ukraine. I'm sure that the asshole Trump will demand Europe not to support Ukraine and go along with this pressuring of the victim. Vance going of with Kremlin talking points is despicable.

US was the leader of the free world for 80 years. Not anymore.

So much for "Man of Peace" getting the Nobel peace-prize. The fucking Putin-loving moron.

Seems that your God Emperor didn't get the Nobel peace prize.

I cheer retaliatory tariffs. — NOS4A2

Then you cheer for Canada, Europe and Mexico! Because they didn't start this stupidity.

Good for you!!!

Trump the lunatic has to be stopped.

I would suspect the US is going to be in a very bad way before too long. But then anyone with half a brain could always have seen that by ‘Making America Great Again’, he actually means totally f***ing it up. — Wayfarer

But here I think the UK and it's Brexit shows just how otherwise sane people will fall for insanity and totally unsubstantiated promises and views if not for outright lies. There were no benefits of braking well established trade. Just look at the Brexit thread: the British PF members weren't enthusiastic about the Brexit and it's outcome far earlier than the actual economic effects became reality. But the denial persisted for a long time. Soon would the economic benefits of the UK cutting it's ties to the EU become apparent! Just wait... and then we got to the Labour government, when the Brexiteers could start venting their anger on just how bad things are. That is the likely future in the American case too.

Do notice that nobody is cheering for the trade war and the tariffs. Not even @NOS4A2 (even if he lives in Canada).

When I look at European media and newspapers here, it's evident. Already last week sent shock waves around and the general consensus seems that the US will be now an untrustworthy ally which doesn't share the same values as Europe does. Only the politicians in charge try to moderate their comments and speak diplomatically in order not to anger Trump. Add to this trade wars starting what, next week?

This should be very alarming as this is the way you do brake friendships and make the World far more dangerous. I've been listening to what Canadian politicians have to say about the current relationship with the US and never I've heard so bitter and offended remarks. Questioning the sovereignty of another country isn't a laughing matter, as Americans seem to think.

I think I was the one who told you that a trade war precipitated the Great Depression. Now you're teaching it back to me. — frank

It just sucks knowing that things will be worse off for everyone.

Basically because the US can destroy Russia without Europe's help. If the US needed European support, it would be a different story. — frank

Then there's the actual things to do when the US has to be involved. Which aren't so biblical wars as WW3. And then having allies is crucial.

Just think about it. Trump is likely going to war in Mexico and then the absurd Mar-a-Gaza idea. And this from him when there is no serious NEW crisis around or an attack that has to responded to!

I find it puzzling how many still take Trump's word for much of anything. — jorndoe

For him it's just words, but his administration will go onward with those words.

The US and Australia signed a free trade agreement in 2005. Australian officials are now negotiating tariffs that Trump wants to impose on them.
The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement was signed by Trump in 2018. — jorndoe

This is the whole irony. Trump simply just wants a trade war. The reasons he takes out of thin air.

That's why I've been so pessimistic about the outcome.

It has the potential to. A trade war would help American labor as long as it doesn't coincide with a panic that crashes the system. — frank

If tariffs would be so awesome, why then have they not created the wealth. They don't. That's why country after country has stopped using them.

Tariffs give the domestic industry not to compete with the outside World. They can rest on their laurels and at best simply higher their prices to the level of the foreign competitors. And why not? That brings more money to them especially if people need the stuff, like for eating.

The argument for tariffs and trade barriers is reasonable when you lack the technology or the industry in total and want to create it from nothing. Then trade barriers have worked. But the US is already a top player in global economics. This reasoning doesn't simply work.

And let's remember on the eve of this most stupid trade war, the Smoot Hawley tariffs from the 1930's:

(Investopedia) The Smoot-Hawley Act was created to protect U.S. farmers and businesses from foreign competitors.

The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%. Over 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods. Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression. More than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it. Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

Now Trump is doing exactly the same, but even higher tariffs when the World is far more integrated than it was in the 1930's.

I'm not sure why you're having this reaction. Are you afraid Russia is going to invade your country and Europe will just stand by and let it happen? — frank

I could give a thorough explanation, but I would be repeating myself a lot. But simply put it. If you think that Russia will stop at Ukraine is like believing that a millionaire once he has had his first million will be satisfied and not go for the next million.

So, I'll first ask you:

If just a short while ago Putin was paying Taleban for killed American troops, why do you want now to give him Ukraine on a silver platter and favor the same regime now? Russia has called the US an enemy state and Russian ideology has been anti-American during the Putin era. Why then be submissive to an overtly hostile nation, that is far weaker to you, which doesn't play by the rules you have earlier supported? And why then be hostile against countries, that have been friendly towards you?

Putin surely can play Trump by talking of being allies again and hinting at great deals. But why go with that?

We can go over the reasons why Russian imperialism and military aggression is bad for Europe, but now the question is just why to start appeasing those, who see the US as it's enemy and alienate those, who thought being your allies?

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

Some, but not many. These kind of racist fears are not what many had in mind when opposing the overreactions or excesses of DEI or anti-racism. And that's what they were: workplace excesses that usually showed just how easily especially one can lose a job in the US.

Yet then to go on with the current administration going full word-nazi and erasing "incorrect" words? JD Vance stating that these kinds of minor issues to be a far higher level of threats to Europe than the Russia military aggression and real war? Talk about an overreaction on a monumental scale out of proportions, which indeed makes everybody question just how sinister the real objective is.

Let's remember that Jordan Peterson got his fame and publicity by going against a Canadian law could be interpreted as setting rules for language. That kind of "word policing", which likely didn't have much effect in Canada, gave rise to Peterson. And now you have the Trump administration erasing words like equity from government documents and websites and people going through personal mails of government employees to fire them if they have been against the administration.

I remember one Democrat openly admitting that the party went too far in the DEI / anti-racism narrative thinking that it's the next step after the civil rights movement. That was an honest statement, but then, as typically happens, the counter reaction from the MAGA crowd wipes absolutely everything aside.

The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire. — frank

And do you think that starting a trade war, which likely ends up in a global downturn, will help that?

Do you think raising the prices of consumer products will help that? How does it help you when Canada understands that it has to turn away from US trade and start trading more with other countries, like with the EU and have stronger economic ties with the union? Tell me, how does that help you?

Your economy isn't in it's infancy, those American corporations have themselves pushed the factories into China, just like Elon has in China. Now thinking that tariffs will help you, when they clearly won't (just look at what similar thinking in the 1930's ended up with).

That is America. — frank

You don't want to have a welfare state, you don't want universal health care or free education. You could easily have that, but you do not want it. You want to give tax breaks to the rich and believe that the best thing is not only to man the highest positions in the administration with billionaires, but to give unchecked power to the richest man in the World. That's the United States Americans seem to want and vote for. Because obviously, for some reason you buy the argument that is this rule by the rich or then everything else is Venezuela type socialism.

It's all that you are doing yourself by your own choosing. And loosing that leadership role won't make it anymore easier. Actually it's the American defense companies that will be hurt when Europe starts focusing on it's own military industry.

In fact, you can both have a strong military and a welfare state and people be prosperous. But that means that the rich do have to pay taxes. Sweden during the Cold War is actually a great example of this: a rather small country could have it's own military industrial complex capable of building top of the line fighters, submarines and even building an own nuclear weapon. And also creating that welfare state.

The thing that either it's guns or butter is the wrong idea.

AG Bondi claimed on Fox News that we might see some Jeffry Epstein info today. I suspect it’s a huge bust, and anything pertaining to who else might have been involved will or has gone missing, but who knows? — NOS4A2

LOL!!! :lol:

Well, this administration will SURELY erase every connection that Trump had with Epstein, who "liked girls on the young side" as Trump called it.

(Of course, what is cut out in this video are the young girls dancing that Trump is commenting to Epstein)



* * *

Then back to Trump being Trump, as usual...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XkgoXUyGlHM

The US has a giant nuclear arsenal with the ability to deploy them with ICBMs, medium range missiles, submarines, and Air Force bombers. Why does the US need NATO? I'm asking. — frank

You do know that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US has, btw.

Why do you need NATO?

Let's see.

1) You could do inflict most crushing military victory when you created an alliance and got UN support when George Bush formed a huge alliance and liberated Kuwait. But that was during the time when the US gave a thought to building alliances as it had had to anticipate always the reactions of the Soviet Union. There was a lot of support from NATO countries, one British division and one French division alongside a large amount of aircraft and naval vessels. It all adds up. Just with few men killed, you basically destroyed one of the largest armies in the World, which was on the cusp of truly getting a nuclear deterrent. And you understood not to go further than the liberation of Kuwait (as back then you valued thei views of your allies).

2) You needed NATO in Afghanistan. In the end there were more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US troops.

3) You needed NATO Countries in Iraq. But here... as the neocons didn't care about alliances, you got only basically the UK. In the end it didn't go as planned, too few men and then when you actually did win the Al Qaeda, you went away and got ISIS to emerge from the void.

4) Obama didn't bomb Syria and hence lost his face by drawing an imaginary line with NATO members, even UK, saying no. Here you saw your own limitations WHEN NATO countries wouldn't join you. But naturally you forget it. And anyway, Syrian civil war came to it's conclusion no thanks to you.

5) You will need NATO countries if you get into a war with China. Or you will just deal with it all alone?

Right. Let's think about that.

Imagine how that will go when no Asian country is willing to come to your side when you face of China and NATO countries and Australia just "hope that tensions between China and the US will de-escalate". The idea of going alone just shows how piss has gone into the head of the US. Just as the US doesn't seem to care about the values it has shared with the West anymore (but goes with Russia and North Korea). And wants to start the most stupid trade war. Well, pay then happily the tariffs thanks to Trump.

It really comes down to this: when you cannot understand how much of the current prosperity you have is thanks to the Superpower status, it's really the epic failure of your own government to make it's case for this. Other countries have happily given the US the leadership role. But once other countries don't listen to you, you will understand it.

More of Elon's dubious attempt to create a 400 million contract for Tesla. Suddenly a +400 000 USD contract under Biden administration became a 400 000 000 USD contract. Or attempt on one.

(NPR) It appeared as if the State Department was taking steps to award Elon Musk's Tesla a $400 million government contract to buy armored electric vehicles to securely transport diplomats. The move to set in motion a lucrative contract to a company controlled by a high-profile ally of President Trump seemed so bold it surprised even longtime observers of the norm-busting president.

When asked about it, the State Department issued a statement saying the purchase is now on hold with no plans of fulfilling the contract, pointing out that talks with Tesla began during the Biden administration.

But NPR has obtained a State Department document detailing that Biden's State Department planned to spend just $483,000 in the 2025 fiscal year on buying electric vehicles and $3 million for supporting equipment, like charging stations. It represented less than 1% of the hundreds of millions of dollars likely destined for Tesla vehicles after the Trump administration quietly revised a State Department procurement document.

The vast discrepancy in the numbers raises the question: Was it an error or a deliberate action?

A former Biden White House official familiar with the State Department's plans told NPR the steps taken to advance $400 million worth of government business to Tesla appear to be intentional.

"I don't think this is a clerical error. It was likely someone who is new in [the] State [Department] who decided, 'OK, we're gonna do this with Tesla,'" said the former official, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

The person said the State Department and Tesla had agreed during the Biden administration to conduct research about armoring electric vehicles, but no money had been set aside to purchase armored Teslas for the State Department. A total budget of $483,000 had been approved to buy light-duty EVs as possible State Department vehicles. That plan was moving forward as recently as November 2024.

It's a perverse way to go: to say to fight corruption, one enables rampant corruption. To say one is improving the lives of the ordinary people, one makes everything even worse with few insiders going from corruption to outright looting and kleptocracy. To say one is for freedom of speech, one implements the most outrageous word-policing that is fitting to an authoritarian state and an environment of ruling by fear.

Yet Trump supporters are totally fine with this, because they have blocked away any criticism towards their leader. This is the way that conspiracy theorists work: they think that everything has been this huge conspriracy, and what they want is to have the conspiracy of their own as they don't believe that the antidote to conspiracies would be openness and stronger democratic institutions. People are sheeple, so it is necessary to use propaganda. Now the correct propaganda of the anti-deep state people. Conspiracy theorists are the enemy of a democracy, because they don't believe for starters that a democracy could or would be possible.

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive — Benkei

Just look at his official photo.

Coupled with being badly informed or misinformed, we get what people consider irrational on the outside. But it appears very rational; just mean and low. — Benkei

Is being mean and going low rational? I would think it's an emotional response, not rational. People did forecast that after the chaotic end of his last presidency and all the court drama that Trump has endured, he would be embittered and vindictive. And that's what he appears to be.

Trump is destroying all the pillars that the US has stood on. The US doesn't hold anymore values it once shared with Europe, and Trump will wreck the US economy as it wrecks it's own government. When the reasoning is based on such ignorant and foolish hallucinations like the US would become more prosperous by starting huge trade wars with everybody or that raising up prices with tariffs doesn't raise prices, the end result will going to be bad.

But there's the crowd that wants this to happen and live in a dream world where Trump is doing the right thing. When it all fails, as it will, they will just immerse themselves with even more ludicrous reasons how Trump's efforts were undermined by the deep state and the evil foreigners.

I thought NATO had to do with opposing communism. Communism is gone. — frank

NATO is a security treaty organization, which the European Union lacks. As states do have security issues even after Communism is gone and we don't have the old Cold War going, there is a need for NATO.

Why NATO has worked is because it's so totally dominating alliance. Nothing comes close to it. And European countries have arranged their militaries to work under NATO and with NATO. If there is no NATO, a lot of countries need to radically change their posture. And European countries have seen the obvious advantages with having an alliance.

Without NATO, Europe is a far more volatile and destabilized place. It's quite important that the armed forces of Europe are basically working together and not being against each other. The tensions between Greece and Turkey do show that there are and could be more tensions. Otherwise there could be tensions between Hungary or Romania etc. So just as with European integration, there's a solid reason for an European security integration.

Then just add one former Empire that is apparently reconquering it's territory, so you do have an urgent need for a security arrangement. Unlike some try to argue, there is a real threat that Russia poses for Europe.

The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us? — frank

The strength of the US or it's role of being a Superpower has come from it's ability to have allies, that voluntarily give it a leadership role. Europeans have been OK with this. The whole reason for us to listen what an US President blabbers about.

With no alliance, your out of the equation. Europe will go it's own way and won't listen to you. It won't buy your weapons and won't listen to you, because you are untrustworthy.

And as I've said, the whole reason for the USD to be a reserve currency is because of the Superpower status. NOT because of your economic position. Why the hell would we give you the position of reserve currency, if you are just our competitor and nothing else? That is ludicrous!

The impact will be that you won't have so warm ties with Europe and simply be a competitor, like China. Once we don't share the values, then we will drift away from each other. You really think that is a good idea?

Luckily I don't represent Gen Z.

Trump didn't come into power in a vacuum.

From your link:

White working-class men are hardest-hit: only
14.6% entered higher education in 2021, the
lowest of any ethnic or socioeconomic group.
One in three is economically inactive – a figure
that has doubled since the early 1990s – leaving
nearly two million young men out of work.
This leaves many struggling to find their place
in the world.

And this is the reason why the fascination. And just why the crusade against wokeism and the support for anti-immigration policies. And why populist movements are so popular.

It's an universal phenomenon in the West. I assume it's even a bigger issue in the UK, which has long had a very clear class system. Usually for boys who relate to the blue-collar background, school isn't a place for. Yet the similar issue is happening also in the Nordic countries, where a similar class divide isn't so apparent in the society.

You'll hear how it goes personally then. Let's just remember that this is the time when Trump has the backing in Congress.

I remember one former Australian prime minister saying that the way to get Trump's respect is simply hold your position. And when looking at the "deals" he makes, he isn't a good negotiator. I think he hasn't gone after Australia yet.

I think that Panama and Denmark just try to avoid the conversation getting back to them as there will be enough calamity in other issue that Trump dips his head into.

With Musk it's quite the same. But it's welcoming to see that from all of the people that have said that "don't give importance to Musk's emails" to their government employees it's Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. Having then public tantrums in your own social media isn't the most adult thing for Musk to do.

Zero comprehension of the separation of powers. — Wayfarer

And they will not get it. Starting from Trump.

So good luck having that Civil war of yours, because likely you have to fight to get back your Republic. If Americans still want to live in a Republic, that is.

Which is an over-reaction. But so is NATO. Its 30 years out of date, at least. — AmadeusD

How was it out of date? It has worked well.

No NATO state has been attacked and NATO countries haven't gone to war with each other (like Greece and Turkey). If there would be no NATO, the Baltic States and Eastern Europe would be in the similar situation as Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine are now. Or worse. Putin would already have been pressuring them for a long time. And perhaps Greece and Turkey would have had a border war.

The absolute lie promoted here is that Russia wouldn't acting as it is if there wouldn't be a NATO. This is simply shown not to be true when you look at Moldova... and it's frozen conflict. Moldova never has approached NATO in anyway, yet it has Russian troops inside it. Likely there would be "frozen conflicts" or similar events in the Baltic States (like Russian peacekeepers in the country), if they wouldn't be in NATO. This is the fact that the Putin appeasers simply refuse to even think about. Putin is the one making his country "Great Again".

And when one NATO country was attacked by non-state actors, article 5 was implemented. And to help the US. And in the end there were more NATO forces than American forces in Afghanistan, when the US decided to pull out after Trump had shown his brilliance in making surrender deals.

And the alternative? Just look at the alliances that the US has in Asia. Bilateral defense agreements with the actual countries having nothing to do with each other. South Korea and Japan don't work together. The only "alliance" is adding UK to the US-Australian bilateral agreement, which is quite natural since UK and Australia already have a defense agreement. No SEATO there anymore.

Besides, the Western European Union (WEU) was dissolved. Everybody, including the US, was happy with NATO back then.

Now perhaps a similar arrangement has to be made with Canada, UK and Norway and Iceland have to taken into a new defense pact as the US seems not to need any allies. Perhaps taking orders from the Kremlin is enough.

What do you make of it?
(Though tempting, I haven't brought up any psychological terms.) — jorndoe

You can talk absolutely crazy things and people won't notice how crazy they are, if you say you are "just thinking out of the box" or don't care about the "Overton window".

When Trump pulls the US out of NATO, these people will cheer like crazy: "Finally, out of it! Good riddance!"

Yet, if the US rid themselves of this cancer and forms a new paradigm of politics with an exclusion of charlatans and the corrupt, they may return their credibility. Most people know that what drives and leads the US today is a sickness, not a vision.

The sickness need to die and the world waits for the US immune system to deal with it. — Christoffer

Well, here's the problem... that sickness dying is the problem. What else will die with it?

Likely when the effects of those so lovable tariffs and trade wars hit Americans, they won't be so happy about Trump. Yes, you can have the democrats taking back the Congress and later the Presidency, or a new party or parties will emerge to do that perhaps. But the damage has been done. People aren't going be sure if populists came back later into power in the US. And Trump and the Trumpist will blame the foreigners for everything. They won't admit that the fault was Trump himself, that is for sure.

Take for example the next thought experiment. Assume that Russians finally would get tired about Putin and his kleptocracy and the whole regime would falter in a revolution. Russians would have had enough the imperial bullshit and opt to establish relations with the West. Fine, but you think people would again do what they did after the Cold War? That Russia is changed forever? The threat of Putinists retaking power would be looming there. You really have to make a true change totally in the wholee society in order to others to believe you have changed. Like Germany did after WW2. Well, that's not likely to happen in Russia. Just as likely as Trump, like Brexit for the British, isn't going to be so bad that all think it was terrible like... the Third Reich. The Brexiteers are quite lively and active even now. Hence likely the US will continue as an untrustworthy or faltering ally, and hence it's 80 year reign after WW2 has basically just ended. This won't go over.

Just look at above at the totally delusional rant that our favorite American that lives in Canada just wrote earlier in this thread . The scolding rant from JD Vance in Munich has a firm believer there. Someone who thinks that the culture war is the more pressing issue as the threat to Europe than actual war and to for us to have a defense against an aggressor, who surely won't stop once Trump has given Ukraine on a silver platter to him, just show how unreal this all is. Nope, that pinko-liberal gay Europe that attacks through DEI-programs the freedom of speech is the real threat, not the hybrid attacks and sabotage of Putin. Putin is their friend, because Trump likes him. And when Trump wants Greenland, Fox News has to badmouth Denmark of being like Venezuela, of course. Don't let Americans notice how insane their president is.

And then there's the argument of Europe resting on it's laurels while American did everything. Like our countries sent troops to Afghanistan for the Americans to decide for us to pull out and for Trump to surrender the country to the Taleban. And that Sweden and Finland haven't been under the NATO umbrella for all the time, with Sweden even making it's own nuclear weapons and still having that welfare state, doesn't matter. Oh, the nasty Europeans are going get what they deserve when America pulls out. That's the way these Americans will look at their work done by generations crumbling, with glee with a bit of shadenfreude as it would be someone else's misfortune than theirs.

And the next outcome is that the brilliant Trump peace deal likely won't happen, so no Nobel peace prize for Donald. Because of Trump, of course. A Rubio or a Kellog could actually even now work out a real peace deal, but as Trump takes the arena with Putin, there's no hope. Trump will do what Putin wants, and that won't fly with the Ukrainians. And Trump will get a tantrum, and will see Ukraine and Europe as being at fault here. And in the end, they have to spread hatred of Europe, because Trump failed. Perhaps they'll call again French Fries Freedom Fries. Or similar.

With Trump it's a fight between reality and the unreal, the lies that Trump says. And that will simply mean nothing will come out of it. Or many bad things will come of this.

At first, the most-stupid trade war ever will shread the good relations. Just look at how US-Canadian relations are deteriorating.

It's extremely easy to make people hate foreigners. Just assume that our countries in the Nordics would behave like Russia, and all hell would brake loose. Sweden could say that Finland is a purely artificial construct and naturally should be part of Sweden. Sweden could declare itself as a protector of the Swedish speaking minority in Finland, whom it would consider native Swedes and actually citizens of Sweden. Or Denmark could ask for Skåne back. Or Sweden and Denmark should compete which can get Norway, because the country has belonged to both of them. Hey, they have oil, so that would take care of financial problems, right? Watch what would be the reaction of the people and how they would start to look at their neighbors. Yet this would be and is totally OK for the Trump supporter, if the Swedish (or Danish) government would be on the Trump train and spreading the alt-right gospel. They deserve Norway or Finland, or Skåne or whatever.

But nope, we are the gay liberal Europe that keeps it's borders open. And seem to which have good relations with each other. We do have good relations. Because somehow we know that is better than hating your neighbors and instilling hatred between the people.

Never in history has a Great Power destroyed it's own structure of power as Trump has done now. You lose credibility only once.

The incoming chancellor of Germany says it well, adding to the comment that US interference in the elections was worse than Putin's interference:

"And what we also see with the greatest concern, of course, is the attempt (by Trump) to make a deal with Russia on Ukraine over the heads of the Europeans, over the heads of Ukraine," Merz told a press conference.

"It will come as no surprise to you when I say that this is unacceptable both for Ukraine and for Europe," Merz said, adding it would be difficult if those who put "America First" actually made their motto "America Alone".

Trump is doing such great job in alienating the former allies of the US, than even Putin has to intervene in his moment of triumph to get his plans through, as Trump in his stupidity would wreck it from the start.

(CNBC) Europe’s participation in Ukraine peace talks will be needed eventually but Moscow first wants to build trust with Washington, President Vladimir Putin said on Monday, while suggesting that a deal to end the conflict may still be far off.

I guess some kind of insanity has taken over Americans, as the Trump supporters simply cannot see how detrimental all this is to the position of the US in the global stage. It boils down to this ludicrous idea that somehow the US doesn't need the World or it's prosperity has nothing to do with the World outside it's own borders.