Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. — neomac

Are you really sure about that? Putin hates the US. Yet the Maga idiots thinks that Putin being a cultural conservative and against Gay Europe is a friend. As if Putin would break ties with China to a few years of Trump chaos? He surely knows that 80% of Americans don't trust him (Putin). His intention is to destroy US power in the World. How isn't that a danger?

But not all European are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia. — neomac

Before weren't, but now the issue is of the whole defense treaty. Don't underestimate how historical this is. If Trump withdraws the US troops and perhaps leaves a small detachment to Orban's Hungary, don't think that people have gotten the message already.

At least for Sweden and Finland it isn't so bad because we have had to have already a military capability to defend ourselves. It's actually countries like Netherlands or others that really have trusted their security policy on NATO that have to think it over now.

Our politicians might be diplomatic, but for example reading comment section in the biggest newspaper, the majority think that Trump is a traitor, a Russian agent and a Quisling. In fact, the few politicians that have said something positive about Trump are getting their asses chewed off by the public.

There is no two party system. It's just that a third party always cripples one of the main two, so there's effort on both sides to avoid fragmentation. — frank

No, what you are stating is the two party system that I'm talking about, which is actually in the minds of Americans. Oh... I have to vote the Dems/the GOP, because a voting to third party candidate would be a vote to the candidate I hate even more.

And then Americans have the idea of primaries. As if the only way for bring change would be through the existing parties. The US just like other countries have only the primary elections. What political parties do is totally dependent on the party works.

And finally the belief in all powerful POTUS. This is the problem. A Republic and a democratic system doesn't work like you elect a King/Emperor for four years, and he'll change everything. But that's what you do have now: a modern day version of emperor Nero.

Not yet. And the division is so deep, maybe never without a revolution or civil war. Which, depends on whether the present regime has time and sufficient support to entrench a dictatorship, or their egregious actions cause massive opposition. Even if the progressive forces win either kind of confrontation, it will require leader of enormous vision, courage, wisdom, persuasive powers and stamina to close the rift.
I'm not expecting a rapid or neat resolution. — Vera Mont

Neither am I. Yet Trump will his utmost to create destruction and destroy the economy and the foreign relations that the US has. In the end this will anger a lot Americans. It's just over a month of his rule and look at what chaos he has already been capable of doing.

I think NATO is done de facto... which would be a good thing for Europe in the longer term. — ChatteringMonkey

But ask yourself really, is it good that Europe and the US go separate ways? How does that make the World better?

Naturally they will go separate ways, when the US acts like a bully and with hostility and contempt against it's allies.

That doesn't really answer the question, why it would be better to prolong this war for European security, instead of using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression. If it's us next, going unprepared in a war that will be difficult to win, doesn't seem like the best option. — ChatteringMonkey

Look, Russia hasn't changed it's objectives and it wants far more territory than it has now and wants a "finladized" Ukraine, realistic option would be a puppet leader for rump Ukraine, if not the total annexation of Ukraine in the future. Either Russia gets what it wants or is put into situation where the continuation of the war has worse consequences than a cessation of hostilities. Those are the only two reasons for the war to stop.

What from above that you don't understand or doesn't answer your question?

There is no option like "Let's stop the war now because it's killing too many people." It's either of those two situations that Russia will stop the war. Anything else doesn't exist. And what Trump is doing now is enabling Russia to reach it's objectives by making it more difficult for Ukraine to defend itself. But Russia is here the attacker and it calls the shots. Now as Trump is helping Russia, Putin's dismal situation is improving rapidly thanks to Trump.

And if Russia achieves it's objectives, what are the consequences? Have you heard about the millionaire that after getting his second million dollars and said "OK, that's enough for me"? That millionaire doesn't exist, he will try to get the third million and the fourth and so on. His success is defined by the amount of millions or billions he has. With Putin it's the territory and the power Russia has in the World.

Trump already gave Afghanistan to the Taleban. That is how he treats his "allies". And it seems he is pushing for a similar resolution again with Ukraine. The next thing that likely is happening already behind closed doors, is that the US is hindering the efforts of Europe to give support to Ukraine. Europe really has to stand up here, because the Trump negotiating tactic is to surrender to have the quick peace he wants. Which is a very dangerous policy which already has had devastating effects, because the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan did enforce Putin's reasoning that he could have the three week war and conquer Ukraine.

But who can effect a major reform? — Vera Mont

There only one answer: only the people themselves.

But if the politicians can instill that polarization and hatred at each other, then the current system can system go on. If the people come together, then the change can be rapid. Anyway, Canada could have a G6 meeting in Kanaskis in June and think what to do with Trump. That would send him a signal.

It has the same consequences, which just are arrived at in a less hardhanded and obvious way. — ChatteringMonkey

No.

To have the Soviet Union or the satellite Warsaw pact states or to have a free democracy don't have the same consequences. Just as being under Russian or in an independent state is far different. Obviously you never had been in the Soviet Union or behind the iron curtain when there was one. I have, it really sucked.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies.

Unfortunately it's not going to be the worst. Trump will continue braking up the alliances that the US has. And he basically doesn't understand it.

First it is Ukraine and Zelenskyi, because he isn't making the surrender deal so Trump could get a win and the Nobel-prize he's after. It's already Denmark, because The Europeans are just in the bewilderment-phase. They are not yet even angry. The Canadians start to be in anger-phase.

Next he will likely start bashing the Europeans and Canadians.

Now I might be wrong, but good luck if the US stays in NATO until and after the next Summit in June 2025 in Hague. As that's many months from now, who the fuck knows what has happened between now and then.

I don't think so because the US largely decides for NATO-members in practice. — ChatteringMonkey

You think so?
We the pitiful paracites, that ought to pay...

And how did that go with Obama and his red-line in the sand? Tell me.

If you believe that NATO is similar to the Warsaw Pact, then you are quite ignorant.

Aside from the question of who is to blame for what, what do you think we should do when the US leaves the war? What are we hoping to accomplish with continuing the war? — ChatteringMonkey

Number 1: DON'T BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT FROM TRUMP

Putin doesn't want peace. What Putin will accept now is surrender. Or a deal that put's Ukraine in such a difficult position that it cannot defend itself if Putin rearms and then attacks again. Only peace terms that Putin cannot win on the battlefield is interesting to him. What Putin has said is that he is interested in normalizing the ties with the US and that's it. No negotiations have even started. The only the thing what has happened is that Trump is amplifying Kremlin propaganda, attacking Ukraine and giving every card away.

Yet the truth Russia will only negotiate if continuing the war can be more risky. That's the thing what history has told us and that's that the peace deals that my country has made with Russia/Soviet Union tells us:

In 1939-1940 Finland with a population of 3,7 million faced over a country with well over 170 million people. Stalin didn't end the war because Finns put up a defense. Stalin chose to negotiate with the "illegal Capitalist Finnish government" because there was the possibility of France and United Kingdom coming to the side of Finland. Stalin, even then in 1940, thought that the West (even Germany) could then ally against him.

In 1944 Stalin chose again peace with Finland because his assault against Finland in the summer had stopped and was out of steam, we even had made a successful counterattack and we Finns still had behind us our main defensive line, the Salpa Line. The Allies had already broken through from Normandy and rushing towards Berlin. Soviet Union had launched it's successful Operation Bagration and the last thing Stalin had in mind was to put more forces on a separate not so strategic front and perhaps lose the contest to take Berlin.

The fact is this: True peace, or even a cease-fire, can be dealt from a position of strength. Of course, you can always surrender. If the Ukrainians want to surrender, nobody cannot do anything about that. If they want to defend their country, we should assist them. It's us next if they fall.

. And hope a savvy Dem leadership reaches out to them though non-official channels. For sure, there will be a thriving black market back and forth, so lines of communication will still be open. — Vera Mont

I think the Americans could be better served by a total reform of the two party system. Centrist Democrats and actual conservatives, not the MAGA-church, could find themselves and simply demand justice, respect of the Constitution and the end of oligarch rule. Fight against the robber barons, act II.

And sure reality is allways more complex, it's just a model of how these situations tend to evolve, and can help us to think about these situations in more long term strategic ways. — ChatteringMonkey

Models are valuable only if they truly depict reality.

Yet I would emphasize that taking the "minor states" only as either proxies or allies of Greater powers, which then can be erased from the equation, is wrong and creates huge, dramatic mistakes. When you go through the objectives and agenda of the regional players, even the smaller ones, you can create a functioning and effective policy, that actually will work. Otherwise, it will sooner or later be a fiasco.

First think of Vietnam.

The Domino Theory just put Vietnam, China and the Soviet bloc all together. Just this Red communism that would collapse country after country like falling dominoes. Well, even the Commies in fact they weren't so together, which can be seen from the Chinese-Vietnamese border war fought only few years after the South was defeated and the country unified. And then it was the Vietnamese who intervened in Cambodia and fought of the Khmer Rouge. But hey, they are all just a bunch of commies unified through their ideology!!!

Then there's Afghanistan.

As I've said, Pakistan had an absolutely crucial role in war in Afghanistan. After all, the Taleban had been their proxy. And Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends: it gave officially support to the "War on Terror" and also aided the Taleban finally to it's victory. And it's real existential threat that it looks at is India, and why it wants to dominate Afghanistan. But how did the Americans approach the war? For them they fought the Taleban because "otherwise Afghanistan would be a safe haven for terrorists to attack Continental US." That was the line given and parroted by everybody as it was the line given to the domestic audience. But that was then really what the policy came to. Absolutely no thought given here to the power structure of the region. And that's why the US kicked out from all of Central Asia, not just Afghanistan.

Similar thing is happening here when Trump wanting to get good relations with Russia is sacrificing Ukraine and trying his best to give the country on a silver platter to his friend, that "he has been through hell", will continue to chip away the ties that have been the foundation for the largest alliance ever.

Trump’s communicative approach in foreign politics is coherent with his aggressive style in domestic politics. And he’s aversion toward to the Europeans is not just resentful because he sees Europeans as materially parasitising the US but also due to an ideological gap that aligns Europeans (mostly the EU) with Democrats and the Woke culture. — neomac

I agree. But Trump really doesn't understand that this isn't entertainment. It really isn't "professional wrestling" that is a show. And the culture war stuff? Fuck that bullshit! We are talking about of war and peace, of having good relations or seeing each other.

Voicing moral outrage to somehow induce the US to be more complacent toward the US can backfire to the extent Trump could use it once more against Europeans (as Zelensky's appeal to common goals and solidarity backfired against Zelensky in the Oval Office). — neomac

For Trump it's just "great Television". Otherwise he is a total coward.Just look at how he is flailing with Canada. He immediately backs down if OH!... the stock market goes down. Oh no!!! Heck, Mexico even didn't have the time to react, only said to react on Sunday (tomorrow), and weak dick bully Trump had already backed down.

Trump can be handled by a) the US economy going down and b) his base getting angry at him. Luckily and thanks only to Trump, you are now facing a recession.

When it's about the sovereignty of nation states and issue of war... who gives a fuck about the stock market? It's a minor detail. People don't give a fuck about losing half of their savings, if the issue is about war or peace, their own lives and their countrymen's lives at stake. This isn't anymore about Ukraine, it's all about the Transatlantic alliance. Only the truly blind and the totally ignorant won't see this. But that is what is at stake.

American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. — neomac

No, it's not logical to break down the globalization that empowerd the US and made it to be prosperous. You can spend without any limits because the US has been a reserve currency, which IS A POLITICAL decision your allies have accepted, not an economic decision or a thing that has emerged just from the free market. Please let that sink in. The World has gone on for thousands of years without a "reserve currency" and can do that again. It's plain an simple: companies participating in foreign trade can use a basket of currencies and don't have to rely on a "reserve currency". Why should let's say Italy and Saudi-Arabia use dollars for oil trade. There is absolutely no reason for this ...other than the US had provided security guarantees for both countries.

And then just think of the immediate consequence of this rift between the US and Europe. What will emerge as an obvious result is strategic autonomy, a thing that France has promoted. Sure, France has been an ally of the US, fought in it's wars, yet has not depended on US arms exports. And that makes total sense, because I can easily imagine the rest of Europe being in situation as Ukraine is with the US when Trump acts like he does. If you really think good relations are gotten with bullying and threats, then think again.

[/

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. — neomac

And I repeat my line and my question to you: Trump didn't make us to spend more in defense. Putin did. Putin is a threat to Europe. Now you are siding with Putin. What does that make the US for us?

So why be friendly with Russia, a basket case of a country with huge problems, which is run by a dictator and could have it's own revolution, and then push away and anger an union of 500 million people that have thought of America and Americans as friends that share the same values? Why make us the adversary? That's what Trump is doing. It doesn't make any sense.

If Trump wants that, OK. The US won't be a superpower anymore. It will loose it's allies.

Indeed. The only viable strategy for democratic nations right now is to work around the US. Withhold intelligence, reconfigure trade agreements among themselves, shutting the US out whenever possible, exclude the Trump regime from discussions, negotiations and diplomatic endeavours. It won't be easy... but it may not have to be carried on for too long: once the Trumpites are kicked out, relations can resume. — Vera Mont

This actually is the reality. How you kick out the MAGA lunatics will be the question, because as you can see the Trump recession is already here, even if Trump is waivering with the tariff-destruction. WIll it happen through elections, demonstrations, a revolution or civil war. Because with Trump those last horrible scenarios aren't just imagination for Hollywood-movies, but theoretically totally possible outcomes.

Perhaps the way here is just to keep the door open for the US to join it's allies once this mental breakdown called the Trump administration is over. Perhaps how France under DeGaulle went away from the alliance in the 1960's to join later back would give us an example of how to deal with the Trumpian tantrum.

Unfortunately I think it won't go so diplomatically. Once Trump really understands what is happening, it's not only Denmark that will be badmouthed to the MAGA crowd. And naturally Russia as the enemy of the US will try it's best to make the rift even bigger.

This is the most irritating fact with these "experts", when they leave totally away the naked imperialist ambitions out, because that is the basic reason just why these countries insisted in joining NATO. The narrative of the US just going and picking on Russia is biased and simply wrong.

In fact the real criticism against NATO shouldn't have been the typical anti-Americanism, but the fact that the US had seem to lost the reasoning just why NATO was so successful, because European countries genuinely loved it. Comparing to CENTO and SEATO, nothing of the kind of synergy happened between members states in those historical treaty organizations. Above all, the success in creating a team from independent nations is the true accomplishment in NATO.

As we have this incredible situation where the US president is in love with Putin and has become the enabler of Russian aggression and is ruining the position of the United States, we clearly see what the result is. Once the US leaves, then the need for a new security system is evident.

Now some argue that Russia isn't a threat to Europe because it hasn't been able to defeat Ukraine. Well, earlier the same people were saying was that Russia couldn't fight itself out of a brown paper bag when it didn't achieve success in the first Chechen war. And now with the American president supporting Russia, Russia is really an existential threat to Europe. With the actions that Trump has now taken, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would start limit European weapon deliveries to Ukraine.

And we see the outcome here: Europeans will make an effort to defense. Even if it's not declared by everybody, the French idea of strategic autonomy has finally won. People are in denial if they think that the Trump administration can be trusted to fall in line if a NATO member feels threatened and calls for article 5. Only few years earlier this was a pipe dream, but thanks to Trump, it isn't.

Just as by invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin put Finland and Sweden to join NATO, now in 2025 Trump's actions have put the European NATO members plus Canada to think about a world without the US seriously. The question is, that once Europe does get it's act together, why would then afterwards listen to the whims and the rants of the US president later.

Trump being totally ignorant of Article 5 having already been implemented. And they did come to fight in Afghanistan. Eagerly, actually, to show the support for the US. In fact, when Biden bugged out of Afghanistan, there were far more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US forces.



Perhaps Trump is hinting that he will "walk away from NATO as they don't pay" as nobody is paying the 5% of GDP, including the US. Or actually I think a Baltic country is already paying so much and Poland will likely spend on defense soon as much. But of course reality or the facts don't matter. It's a figleaf like the absurd Fentanol-line was for the Canadian tariffs.

I think that Trump will do what Elon and Vladimir Putin will want: He will walk away from NATO because "they don't pay".

Never have I seen a nation dismantling itself as now. And even if the tariffs are ended, the instability and the uncertainty will create the Trump recession. And in the end there will be the Constitutional crisis.

I think the outcome is that the US can possibly even have it's own second revolution... or civil war. This guy isn't Ceaser. He really is more like Nero. An entertainment guy also.

Yep. Those are the attitudes of the present. And I'm sure that Claude Malhuret and the Canadian politicians aren't going to be alone with their truthful and realistic views on Trump.

I haven't come across any examples of Trump criticizing Putin. Anyone? — jorndoe

Never.

I'm not claiming that it is our fault exclusively, I'm only claiming that it isn't Russia's fault exclusively... — ChatteringMonkey

I've always accepted that NATO enlargement has been one genuine reason. I've myself pointed out that in their military doctrine they stated NATO enlargement as their biggest threat. However

The fact is that NATO membership has to be accepted by all member states. Just look at how difficult it was for Sweden to get in to NATO. Several member states even now are against Ukraine being a partner. This is something extremely important to understand, just as that prior to 2014, there had been all the "reset" attempts even after the Russo-Georgian war.

Above all, the large military exercises on the Ukrainian border were enough for Germany to promise that Ukraine wouldn't be a NATO member. So if this would have been just about NATO membership, a show of force would have done it. But did Putin fine with this? Of course not! Because it wasn't just about NATO membership.

No, he went to demand NATO that Russia would have to have a veto on any new members. And btw. have to withdraw from the new member states. NATO couldn't go against it's own charter. And this shows that Putin didn't have in mind just stopping NATO enlargement. In fact, when Russia demanded this veto, that was the time when Finland understood that NATO membership couldn't anymore be just an option. Putin really wanted to take Ukraine back, because he assumed that Ukraine was as ripe for an easy picking as it had been in 2014 and the US and NATO wouldn't do much, as they had just given Afghanistan to the Taleban (with both Trump and Biden being culprits for the Afghan catastrophe).

it is the relation, the dynamic between to two, that got us to where we are. — ChatteringMonkey

Please, do not forget my country and Poland and Sweden and Lithuania and... the goddam 30 countries or so involved in this!

This isn't just the US and Russia. Or EU and Russia. The whole NATO enlargement isn't just an action done by the US. The US and the West didn't think much about NATO enlargement. It was the little new member applicants themselves. They were themselves the ones pushing the US here. You have to stop looking at this from the old Cold War lense of there being just two Superpowers. You won't get the real picture if you just brush off other states here as being the stooges of either the US or Russia. That's not how the game goes. For starters, Ukraine itself is here an actor.

Just look at the war in Afghanistan. There the US was totally obsessed with Al Qaeda and later the Taleban and didn't care a shit about Pakistan. Well, Pakistan did care a lot about Afghanistan and the Taleban. And they played both the US and the Taleban and finally got their victory with the US leaving the place. This happens to the US when it doesn't give a fuck about anybody else.

The point of Thucydides trap is that it's not about how we view ourselves, but about how the rival percieves us. Sparta felt threathened by rising power Athens building a defensive wall... we expanded the EU and NATO, a defensive alliance. — ChatteringMonkey

When you whole society is basically a military, then all you see will be threats.

Still I would say that the example of a rising power is more China and the US, because China becoming an economic colossus caused the US to see it as a threat. Before it was Japan, which actually was an ally.

What you forget is that Russia isn't a normal country, it has imperial aspirations and will be because of them a real security threat to it's neighbors. In fact, an existential threat when you are next to Russia and have been part of the Soviet Union. Russia is not like UK that after losing the Empire after some brief colonial wars, then created a Commonwealth and is fine with losing it's imperial status and just holds on to the position of being an international banker. The British can laugh about losing their empire. Above all, the UK isn't calling Ireland and artificial country and demanding that all of the British Isles ought to be in the UK.

That's the goddam difference with Russia, what those with the "NATO-enlargement-made-Russia-to-do-it" obsession will not admit. Nope. ONLY thing is NATO enlargement and the US and actually Russia is hence the victim here.

To understand this one has to remember that for Putin the collapse of Russia was the greatest tragedy that had happened in world history. This isn't just some one off remark. Putin has repeated this:

"It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union," Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called "Russia. New History", the RIA state news agency reported.

"We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost," said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called "a major humanitarian tragedy".

Yes, Putin milks Russian fears of Europeans trying to invade Russia, because there was Napoleon and Hitler. Well, Napoleon or Hitler isn't running Europe. But that doesn't matter.

Threat of NATO gives a credible reason for the Russian reconquista of the former Empire and many in their anti-western self-criticism think that NATO enlargement is the only real reason. Yet Putin's Russia wouldn't have been a benign country that would have left the former Soviet states alone if there wouldn't have been a NATO. Only NATO has kept the tiny nations of NATO independent. Moldova is a prime example that for Russian imperialism, you don't need NATO. So without NATO, the Baltic States would already have been under the control of Putin for a long time.

Also the hawkish Bolton was among such analysts as much as part of Trump’s advisors in his first mandate: — neomac

Thanks for the references!

But do notice the difference here. One thing is to ask, especially behind closed doors, about something like this (as Bolton states). Another thing is to declare it openly, like Trump. Actually John Bolton explains it well:

And there are other possibilities that occurred to me: commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico. Joint condominium with Denmark. Independence but with a Compact of Free Association with the United States like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

There are a lot of possibilities. But they never got anywhere, because Trump talked about everything publicly, and the whole thing blew up.

When actually many Greenlanders do want independence, and it's just 50 000 people, what Bolton here is actually saying something that Danes could perhaps accept without losing face.

Yet Trump wants to annex more territory into the US. His agenda is to increase the territory of the US to cover all of the North of the American continent with the large island next to it. And this is the proposed with a sublte manner of asking a man if his wife can be raped.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines: — neomac

OK, I do understand where you are going. And I'm just trying to say that this is absolutely loony.

Autocratic regimes of Russia and China aren't more prosperous than us. We do like our democracy and our justice state. We are willing to fight for it. The "populists" we have do abide with laws and parliamentarism and actually support Ukraine.

But let's go over these points you made:

* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada. — neomac

Yeah, but notice what has happened when Russia made those territorial gains and didn't achieve it's goals of conquering Ukraine in three weeks. Russia is an existential threat to Europe. As von der Leyen said: "A clear and present danger". And that's why Europe is uniting in a historic arms race to put nearly everything and the kitchen sink into defense. That's why countries like Canada, Norway, UK are joining up with EU states as the threat is obvious. This is basically the only way that you can get the 27 nations of the EU plus few that are only in NATO to unite. And once they have built up their defense, why would they then listen to anything that the bully US will say?

And do notice that China hasn't at least yet started military action against Taiwan.

Now, why the fuck would you want the same type of reaction against yourself? Really, nobody has answered here what is the reasoning behind alienating your allies and bowing down in front of your enemies? The only one's agenda that this serves is Russia, as it wants to destroy the power of the US.

As been said, Italy is a larger economy than Russia. Russia is approaching one million dead and wounded in this war and has lost huge quantities of equipment. Why is this country put then on a pedestal?

It's just absolutely crazy that when you use Occam's razors, you do end up with the whims of an old vindictive narcissist as the answer.

* * *
And anyway, if scolding and badmouthing Zelensky, demanding a huge minerals deal without giving any security guarantees, cutting all aid and intel is bad... Perhaps it could be even worse:



Yet perhaps a grain of salt should be used here. The US has a habit of trying to influence things in Ukraine, but it doesn't control them. This is where some swalloy the Russian propaganda too easily: the Ukrainian revolutions, which there have been many, haven't been some astro-turf events machinated by the US. They have been popular revolutions, where usually the US have tried to influence the events. And so will here too happen. Ukrainian resolve to defend their country isn't made up of just one man. And the other Ukrainian politicians mentioned here likely won't be puppets either.

Why did we let these guys put their military bases on our land? Time to do self-criticism. — javi2541997

Great Powers can have totally different policies in totally different regions and with different countries. This is why many have this problem especially with the US as it's actions in it's backyard, in Central America and then in Western Europe or with Israel has been quite different. And this is totally similar with Russia and China. Russia can be outright hostile and murderous in it's "Near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia, yet it's likely very cordial and friendly to India or Brazil. And this is why many traditional leftists who have been against the US have been irritated of my views, if I have mentioned something positive of the previous actions of the US.

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO was a voluntary defense treaty, not an instrument of subjugation. The Warsaw Pact did achieve it's mission in 1956 in Hungary and especially in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was most successful Soviet military operation since Operation Bagration in 1944. It genuinely were the former Warsaw pact states in Eastern Europe that wanted themselves NATO protection. They were the most active in this. And in the case of Sweden and Finland, there is no other reason than Putin himself. Hence the pro-Russian commentators never talk about Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Above all, European countries really loved the system of keeping the Russians out, the US in and Germany lame.

What Americans true hubris is that these new "realpolitik" players that see Europe as weak as the EU is made up of 27 states and the largest of them, Germany, is a militarily tiny, is to see the continent as a liberal pushover. Because outside threat can make Europeans to come together, just like the Greek states came together with a unified threat of the Persian empire. For Europe, Putin is really a threat. If Trump goes to bed with Putin and does Putin's bidding, how would that logically change the situation? What is the threat now?

With Trump, it has changed. Just look at how the relationship has changed with Canada. It's really worth wile reading, and then reading again what Justin Trudeau, the exiting Canadian prime minister said:

Trudeau accused the US president of planning "a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us".

"That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state," he told reporters on Tuesday.

"This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners."

You think that is just "trade war rhetoric"? No, that above accusation you basically hurl at your enemy. Not a competitor, not an adversary, but to an enemy that threatens you. Only an enemy would have this kind of objective. And the way things are going, I think that in the future European politicians will start to sound like their Canadian counterparts.

That Trump has gone to the side of Russia, that JD Vance tells us that Russia isn't a threat to us, but some culture war issue "freedom of speach" is and Trump hints at possibly using force to get Greenland from Denmark have all crossed a line. Because the NATO members aren't Warsaw Pact members, so this has real consequences.

I understand why you Finns are worried; now Trump is fond of a threat to your nation. But let's not forget that he is also very friendly with Muhammad (the dictator of Morocco). What would happen if that mad lad decided to attack Ceuta and Melilla? Will Trump support him? Will Trump threaten Sanchez and Spain as he did with Zelensky and Ukraine? — javi2541997

This is our weak spot and this is why we seem to be so weak to Americans. Because even if I know Ceuta and Melilla, I'm sure that many Finns wouldn't know that these cities are in Africa. And there would be plenty of intellectuals that start talking about Spanish colonialism and the atrocities done in the Rif war.

We've already talked about the totally different security situation that European countries find themselves. I think the whims of the King of Morocco isn't your biggest threat, what if Morocco would collapse to have a civil war like Algeria or Syria? What if on the other side of the city limits (and the border zone) of Ceuta and Melilla you can see the flags of Islamic state of the Maghreb? Those people could declare of the divine mission to retake the lost lands of the Moors back.

The error here is to think that Finns would be indifferent if this happens. If the Finnish leadership tells us clearly just how the perilous the situation is for Spain, then there could be the response. It is simply a case of our leaders understanding that we are in the same boat and we cannot turn a blind eye to others security problems. That makes all security arrangement we have weak.

In the next decades, Europe has to think more about itself! — javi2541997

I would disagree.

The time is now. Or actually after last Friday week ago. And they are already thinking. Thanks to Trump, the World has changed already. The change is here and now.

Oh I saw it. The issue that this country saw the real threat of war in 2022. Now the rest of Europe has woken, those that simply didn't see it before.

Then in 2022 and before it actually wasn't Trump, even if he bragged about changing European attitudes towards defense spending and getting them finally to increase defense spending. Then it was Putin back then, first with the annexation of Crimea and then his assault and planned three week war against Ukraine. The era of Finlandization and the Post-war era for my country ended in February 2022. Then the people here demanded to apply for NATO membership and the politicians quickly responded with also dragging Sweden into NATO, which happened later after a long haggling with Turkey.

But now it was really, really Trump. The Trump-Putin axis has really sent shock waves around Europe and Canada. The US is playing the Kremlin's tunes. We understand just how the threat of large scale war is lurking quite near.

And if we are find out that Trump is really agent Krasnov or not, that doesn't matter so much anymore as the truth is as he is an asset for Russia and is literally pushing the agenda of Putin, things are now changing.

I think that the last weeks have now been a similar historical change as the United States, because you lose trust only once. And that just happened now. Americans, even the Trump administration, can try walk it back, it cannot be done. The US is now simply an unreliable ally. This can be seen from just how hollow it now sounds when Secretary of Defense Hegseth praises the British from his personal experience in Afghanistan. The utter destruction of the credibility of the US has already been done and the silence of Republicans has told us Europeans, that you cannot trust the Americans, even if there are plenty Americans who see the importance of the Atlantic and do want there to be the alliance that has given us peace and prosperity.

The chain breaks from the weakest link, and it doesn't matter how strong the other parts of the chain are.

Europe, the EU, after the fall of the Iron curtain. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I like to call it the confederacy that desperately wants to be an union. Member states aren't anything like the states in the United States or somewhere else. These are sovereign nations states with distinctive unique cultures, languages and history. They naturally have different objectives and agendas as they are situated politically and geographically in different situations. If the English could lure the Welsh and the Scots to all unify under being "British", there is no program of making a German, an Italian, a Greek and a Swede to be similarly "European" as being British.

The only way is... actually this way. Unlike Trump says that it was him who forced the Europeans to "pay up", it was Putin's attack on Ukraine that woke us up. And then the next thing was Trump hopping in bed with Putin.

So a Trump-Putin pact that is against Europe. Yeah, that's gets us to do something together.

Yes, Trump is hell-bent on destroying the US government, department by department, agency by agency. He doesn't give a flying fig about international relations or long-term stability: he wants revenge on his opponents, real and imagined, harm to everyone who has ever been 'disrespectful' to him and the last big money-grab before closing time. — Vera Mont

It is absolutely crazy, but it's understandable when people are so full of hubris that they think that their government is just a service that costs too much and could better done without. And these anarco-libertarians who seem to think they are the heroes in an Ayn Rand novel and their government is their enemy, go smashing everything is just creative destruction and the means to get cuts implemented because the actual legislative course wouldn't work... because liberal democracy and liberal democracies don't work.

Ignorance and hubris becomes a really potent intoxicating shot in foreign policy, where these idiots can really assume that similar smashing will get results, because the pinko-liberals in "gay Europe" won't do anything and hence the war in Ukraine can be stopped by Ukraine admitting to the terms from Kremlin, because Ukraine doesn't mean much to them. And everything is just a deal, a transaction. After all, JD Vance never has been to Ukraine and thinks Russia isn't a threat to Europe, but culture war issues are. So, that tells something about the ignorance and blindness to Europe, just his remarks about possible peacekeepers.

End result is that the US won't have allies, or at least allies that truly trust it. The US won't be looked as bringing stability and definitely not as being the leader of the West. Canadians have now understood this. They have understood that this isn't at all about American jobs and fair trade... which usually was usually the reason for trade wars. Trump really wants the US to have the total Northern hemisphere of the Continent (excluding Mexico) and Greenland on the side. The US is the bully and while Trump is in power, you have to be equally straightforward as diplomacy would be a sign of weakness.

Just listen to this Canadian politician. This is where the relationship has gone to thanks to Trump:


That is really what one can call a breakup in close ties between two nations. Likely Canadians start to think of Americans like the Mexicans do, as the "Gringos". Yes, times can change and Trump does go away at some time, but this is something that people won't forget, even if things would go back to normal. The trust is gone. And the MAGA-people can come back, even if the next administration would try to heal the relationship.

Hence this is the end of the American Superpower. From now on, the US is just a great power among others and bully and a threat to the neighborhood.

Who? :yikes: The US??? :snicker:

The sole Superpower wasn't a "rising power" after WW2. It was the other Superpower and then after Soviet collapse it was the only Superpower.

And now the US is by it's own action deliberately destroying it's Superpower status. Something that never has happened in history, actually. Russia, China and Iran can truly laugh at this as Trump is doing the utmost destroy the position that the US has.

Or who are you meaning?

Thucydides Trap has been used to talk about China.

Not a country like Russia, that has the economy a bit smaller than either Italy or Canada and has blown through it's Soviet era weaponry and only can sustain the war with a war economy.

It's just bullying is all it is. He has the idea that playing nice concedes too much. That's how all ruthless people rule. I just think it will be more effective than you do. — Hanover

How is that effective to you? Perhaps for your enemies like Russia and China, it's great. Putin can breathe now more easily.

I think Trump is simply shattering the Superpower status of the United States. And then he starts the most stupid trade war, which will hurt you. Perhaps Americans are indifferent to that or think it's a great thing. I don't.

Why so indifferent about it?

You just described how you proved my point.

I guess thanks for that. — boethius

Oh you don't have to thank me. I will agree with you when you say something that is true or correct.

It's actually quite important to understand just how Russia fights these wars. Yet perhaps the biggest thing is that we assume that Russia is just a large European state like, well, Germany or Poland.

It's not.

It is really an Empire. It has countries and regions that aren't Russian or European and these minorities aren't migrants (as in the UK or Germany), but basically people that are in a rather same situation as we where as a Grand Dutchy of Russia. Perhaps it would be similar to think of France being connected to Algeria without there being any Mediterranean. After all, France didn't think of Algeria as a colony, but as a part of France with many French living in the country (the Pied-Noirs). Well, Algeria isn't Christian and isn't European and the cultural assimilation is different. Chechnya wasn't either, even if the country was on the European side of the Caucasus mountains. And Central Asia, as name implies, is really different also.

I think this, and it's geography that doesn't give it refuge, makes Russia so fearful especially about democracy and liberalism at it to feel more safer, if it can push it's borders further. And here it sees as the best defense attack. And this creates the self fulfilling prophecy that it's weaker neighbors fear it ...with genuine reason.

Well, now fortunately Europe seems to be waking up. Of course that means that the threat of large scale war has become closer, yet I do think that Europe will find enough deterrence for the peace to prevail here or even in the Baltics.

A Finnish-Russian war, that I predict may indeed happen, would not be Russia attacking Finland but some messy situation and a series of strange events and false flags / alleged false flags (that could be caused by literally anyone, such as cutting undersea infrastructure). — boethius

You are just describing how Russia attacks other countries. False flags are just the Russian traditional method. Or the attackers described as being "volunteers" or "local freedom fighters" and in the end, the Russian army being a "peace-keeping force".

And this isn't really my prediction but only extrapolating a bit on the analysis of Professor Glenn Diesen, who quite confidently asserts Finns are being prepared to fight an inevitable war with Russia. — boethius

Lol. Glenn Diesen, of course. The person who is frequently on Russia television.

But anyway: Si vis pacem, parabellum. The real way you can have peace.

The logical upgrade available is some sort of war between Finland and Russia as Finland is in NATO. — boethius

No, the logical upgrade is the Europe get's it shit together and does take it's security seriously and creates that deterrence, which is needed. All thanks to perhaps agent Krasnov?

And help Ukraine.

For, it is assumed that any sort of fighting whatsoever between Russia and any element of NATO would immediately result in a full blown war, but this is just a thing "people say" and assert as if it's a law of nature when obviously it is not. — boethius

I agree with this, actually.

The fact is that actually two nuclear weapons armed countries can fight each other quite openly without it ending up in a nuclear exchange. This goes to the stupid and actually dangerous idea that we cannot talk about nuclear escalation being contained in a military exchange. The accepted lithurgy is that a war between two nuclear powers would lead to humans wiping themselves off the Earth, which isn't even possible even if all nukes would be used and they all would work.

The really dangerous thing is the idea of "escalation to de-escalation", because it does have a kernel of truth in it. If a small 10KT tactical nuke would be used in the middle of nowhere against a military target, the media frenzy and the collective panic would lead people desperately calling for immediate cease-fire. And that's the idea behind escalation to de-escalate.

In fact, if Russia would want really to get Ukraine to peace talks, it could just do a nuclear test under ground in Novaja Zemlya. NATO, even before Trump, wouldn't have attacked anything if Russia would have made a test in it's own backyard. But in the case, the nuclear rattling would be far more credible than just talking about nukes as now the Russians have done. But since Trump is giving everything to Putin already, no need for anything like that.

There is a whole spectrum of both fighting and tensions between Russia and elements of NATO that can be explored without that leading to a full war, much less a war in which Russia seeks to conquer large parts, or even any part, of the EU. — boethius

And we've seen that spectrum in Moldavia and Georgia ....and Ukraine, prior to the conventional attack.

Yet the fact is that many NATO countries might openly want to believe this crap, because it would be better for them. So perhaps the Nazis in the Baltic States are really oppressing their Russian minorities and having Russian "peace-keepers" there is a great idea. It's just an internal problem like what we saw in Spain in Katalonia etc. Nothing to do with NATO and article 5.

Openly siding with the Kremlin lies is useful for many.

What's going to happen is that a peace treaty will be signed and Trump will take credit for it. — Hanover

Enabling Putin to fight his war against Ukraine by putting Ukraine in a tougher spot does actually quite the opposite. There is no reason for Putin to end this war now. Putin can see that he can have everything. Putin is on the road to get his objectives: Having Novorossiya, having a puppet Ukraine (or at least an Ukraine that has Finlandization), having the Atlantic alliance broken and have the US pushed down to be just a Great Power, not a Superpower anymore. All totally possible.

But live in your bubble where Trump is playing his 4D-chess, and enjoy the trade war he has started.

No one (who matters; aka. decides what the propaganda is rather than their job being to believe it) actually believes that Russia will actually attack the EU. Ukraine was a particular case in terms of culture, strategic military implications, and resources.

Another war maybe fought in Finland, but that will just be to sacrifice Finns to keep up the pretence of this amazing confrontation (and so sell more arms). — boethius

So in the same answer you don't believe Russia attacking the EU yet then you believe maybe Russia would attack the EU.

These delirious opinions should be given respect they deserve: Not worth commenting further.

Wtf, no Iceland? At least I heard Icelandic leader being quite on the side of Ukraine. Even if they don't have an army and are a tiny nation.

Leaders matter to the extent they aggregate, represent, and guide collective interests coming from ordinary people, powerful economic and media lobbies, geopolitical experts, political entourage and advisors. — neomac

I would agree to this when it comes to Putin, Netanyahu, Bush etc. But Trump really is an exception here. Let me put it this way:

Was there a drive in the US for the territorial expansion of the US as Trump has put it? If you haven't noticed, this has truly angered the Canadians to feel that this isn't just a trade issue at stake here. Really, before Trump I didn't notice this thinking that the Northern Hemisphere ought to be belonging and annexed by the US anywhere inside the US. If someone (correctly in some events) called the US policy neo-imperialist, this is actually quite old-school imperialism. The fact is, nobody, no political movement was asking for territorial expansion that Trump has declared his objective. This really is Trump's own designs that he's taken on.



This makes Trump totally different. Trump has to be understood as a person, who thinks he has these great ideas. He's not acting as a representative of a political movement, he's more acting like a king. Kings obviously look after their nation, but can come up with ideas themselves what would be best for the country. The total disregard of the separation of powers tell that this isn't a man who see's that he has a certain limited role as the elected leader of the executive branch, who then should share power with the legislative and the judicial branch. He clearly want's to dominate the two other branches. OK, so he's an autocrat, at least a wanna-be. But there's more to this.

I think professor Timothy Snyder explains best the view I have about Trump. Snyder correctly explains what the Trump plan for Ukraine is: "It's not a peace plan yet, but a warmongering process" as "literally everything that Washington has done under Trump, has made it easier for Russia to carry out the war". Snyder observes that Russia itself isn't talking about a peace process and it hasn't given away on any of it's objectives, It's just that the US stance has come aligned with it. Making concessions to Russia just enables them far more. And Snyder also notes how Trump views the issue at a personal level, Trump and Putin personally. Similarly Snyder noticed in the scolding of Zelenskyi that Trump told that "he and Putin have gone through tough times together".

Worth watching this interview:


I agree that with Snyder's observation that this has made the US far weaker and improved the position of both China and Russia.

Don't have Disney+

In fact, if one has to say the absolutely best movie about urban insurgency is The Battle of Algiers (1966). Really a truly amazing war movie about urban insurgency and terrorism. You would be also interested to compare the French action in Algiers and Algeria to the British actions in Northern Ireland. You see, the French did lose Algeria, the British didn't lose North Ireland. And notice the similarities and the differences in the counter-insurgency methods.

Here's the trailer of this great war movie:

I think a real genuine problem is that European leaders have a hard time to see how erratic Trump is and how the Trump administration will follow every erratic decision he will make.

They still assume to be talking to an administration, that is logical. That Trump might say this or that, but later clearer heads will prevail.

Listening to the responses of Canadian politicians, I think they are really finally awaking what kind of president Trump is. This man is ignorant and stupid, he genuinely wants Canada to be the 51st state of the US. He is incapable of thinking why this wouldn't be such a great idea. Canadians have also noticed that behind the trade wars there actually isn't much reasoning. When Canadians do understand this, then they respond to Trump as one should respond to someone like Trump. The UK doesn't notice, that they too have a "special relationship" with a Commonwealth partner called Canada. And the "special partnership" is nearly non-existent. The only country that has a "special partnership" with the US is Israel. Europeans still assume some kind of sanity behind the madness or some continuation in the policy of the US.

For example, Trump has repeated his desire for Greenland. And this is a message that the Danes simply don't get as they think and believe that the US is an ally and anything else simply would be impossible:

Just look at the response of ordinary Danes (or the few Greenlanders) when asked about it. They are simply puzzled:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3qjBWIf9gkc

And compare this when the Foreign Minister Lars Rasmunssen is asked about the question about Greenland (at the 6:00 mark in the following video). He is simply bewildered and gives a non-answer:



So perhaps just wait and hope that Trump will have to focus somewhere else. If Ukrainians would think similarly, it would be very dangerous.

Because the warning signs that Trump genuinely doesn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine and will want peace quickly even if it's Ukraine surrendering to Russia doesn't sink in. Ukrainians might understand this, but Europeans simply cannot fathom this kind of behavior, hence they are shocked when Trump continues with his outrageous ideas.

What should be understood, that Europe and Ukraine do have the cards here. If the US walks away, it then walks away. Then they should rapidly send weapons and ammo as it would be 2022. It is possible, the defeatism spread by Kremlin is propaganda.

:up:

What's up with that? — jorndoe

The Trump administration is ending everything that would put him in the questionable light in any way...

As you know, Jan 6th was a peaceful protest and Trump won the 2020 elections. :smile:

Do you even read what I write?

So I'll repeat:

But as the Mueller report didn't find direct cooperation, then the whimsical idea that you promote has surfaced. Just like the Jan 6th attack on Congress didn't lead to an autocoup by the former President, it had to be a peaceful demonstration and Trump won those elections. Similar dubious logic. (Which already was backed then discussed on this forum)

Hence:

The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.

You just keep wearing that MAGA-hat with your fellow Canadians. Just keep telling them how great it would be for them to become the 51st State of the United States under Trump.

Well, then let's refer to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election:

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020, ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries." The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.

But oh! In your echo chamber they have "unproven" this. Oh yes...

Yes, Trump is going again for a "reset". Like uh, George W Bush, Obama...
So forget the war and "the dictator of Ukraine" and NATO, Russia has so much to offer Trump!

So will Lavrov get the famous reset button for Trump to push with Trump?

And is there any gold left after they have been there? :joke:

No seriously, have you noticed that gold has been quite persistent...




Wrong again. This is similar lie like the peaceful protest of Jan 6th.

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

- The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
- Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
- A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”
Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.
Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.

See here

But as the Mueller report didn't find direct cooperation, then the whimsical idea that you promote has surfaced. Just like the Jan 6th attack on Congress didn't lead to an autocoup by the former President, it had to be a peaceful demonstration and Trump won those elections. Similar dubious logic. (Which already was backed then discussed on this forum)

And now we see the effect of this.

And here's Trump's greatest gift to Americans: the Trump recession! Came in quite quickly.

(Forbes, March 4th 2025) A slew of economic data is signaling that a recession is around the corner. The impending economic contraction, and possibly a recession, is primarily being caused by President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed on Canada, China, and Mexico and the wave of retaliation which has now followed. Moreover, the chaotic layoff of federal workers will likely lead to a rise in unemployment and tightening of spending by those losing their jobs. Additionally, deportations of undocumented immigrants, as well as the fear thereof, is causing significant uncertainty in several important economic sectors such as construction, farming, hospitality, poultry, and small businesses.

On Monday, a closely watched model of gross domestic product level, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow, estimated significant decline of 2.8% in annualized growth for this quarter. This is a sharp contrast from a 2.3% increase last week. Unlike the quarterly GDP figure, which is a lagging indicator, GDPNow is the Federal Reserve’s running estimate of real GDP growth based on available economic data for the current measured quarter.

The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2025 is -2.8 percent on March 3, down from -1.5 percent on February 28.

This kind of information the Trump administration doesn't want to be leaked out. Unfortunately for Trump, the local Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the government. There also is a real possibility of a stock market crash, if they aren't ready to support the market. Gold, anyone? Especially if there is a crash, also gold prices might go down for a while.

Exactly.

I would prefer Europe to get its act together without getting lured into a cataclysmic war with Russia, thank you very much. — Tzeentch

You need a strong military and the will to fight the aggressor to have real deterrence. Appeasement will bring that cataclysmic war with Russia. Only strong deterrence does literally what it means: deters Russia. Weakness and appeasement will only raise the interest of Putin.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it saw the country as weak. All the intelligence people (that Putin later fired) gave that impression that it would be as easy as annexing Crimea. That Ukrainian military wouldn't put up a fight, that a Russian proxy leader could be installed quickly to rest of Ukraine as Novorossiya would be carved up was the idea. It would be as successful as the dash for Crimea. Or like Operation Danube, from history.

There will be peace in Ukraine, and Europe won't be going to war with Russia, no matter how hard some disgruntled intellectuals might find it to swallow their words. — Tzeentch

Europe doesn't have to go to war with Russia. Europe can assist Ukraine. If they only would believe in themselves. Europe holds the cards here as Ukraine does. Not Trump. But Putin can simply continue the war too. He isn't been pressured at all.

If you're eager for more blood, go volunteer for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion while you still can. — Tzeentch

I know some of them. They are highly respected in our military and with our reserves as they bring valuable insight on the actual fighting capabilities of the Russian forces.

They know their political lives will be cut short if they have to make a 180 on Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Well, working for Putin will cause that, because people at least in the Nordics, Baltics and Eastern Europe do see Putin as a threat. It's called democracy, you know.

There is, of course, no guarantee that anyone will take my sage advice. Perhaps the opposition will fold up, dig a hole, and bury itself in it. Perhaps Donald Trump will bring about full-fledged fascism. Bad things can and do happen to good people. — BC

I bet 1 euro that it won't happen like that. The opposition to Elon Musk and Trump will rise. Perhaps Trump will then want to use the insurrection act, which will just draw more opposition like flowers and honey attracts bees. It will just give more vitalism to the cause. This is something that won't be limited to just angry town hall meetings.

The Trump recession is already here, it has started. His most stupid trade war will just reinforce the downturn. Trade wars before had some reasoning behind them, with Trump they don't. And Canada being said to be the 51st state isn't a laughing matter here, just like taking Greenland isn't either. It just shows the hubris of these ignorant Trump followers.

As I've said even before this all started, Elon Musk will be the most hated person in the US and around the World. And after him, it's going to be Trump. Yet this is absolutely devastating for Tesla. Tesla as a company is already getting the response for Elon's crazy actions. After all, who the fuck will buy a Tesla now as it's a political statement that you are for Elon?





And it's going to be worse. A lot worse.

The Trump cult will fight for it's revolution and live in it's alternate reality, where the economic and political damage that Trump (and Musk) have caused will likely be portrayed as the doings of the "Deep State", which is there to get Trump. And some will believe that idiotic line.

So don't think you won't be heard.