It's an effort to bring the kind of political polarization to Europe that is happening in the US.

Unfortunately, foreigners openly rooting for one political party may backfire quite much. Just as it would backfire if Europeans would be openly rooting for Democrats and accuse just like Vance of everything that Trump is doing. The simple fact is that many democrats wouldn't like it.

.

It's an effort to bring the kind of political polarization to Europe that is happening in the US. — ssu

Yes. But it has been happening for years. A slow boil. Here, in the UK, we have Nigel Farage and the party he founded or purchased - 'Reform UK'. Leading to Brexit. It is gaining in strength. Full of populist rhetoric, it appeals to the young and disillusioned. Alienation including misogyny and hate. But we need to look further into the inequalities - house prices, job security.

The issues of insecurity are driving some from democracy to the 'certainties' of strong-man dictatorship.
Extreme parties are gathering force. Can we re-engage by tackling issues at the root?
For parties to listen to and tackle serious problems at the level of the citizen.

They all claim to be the voice of the people. What people?

Do we need this crisis to get real? Or is it now about going to war?
How civilised are we? Will the people even have a say in the matter?

Brexit was one of the most terrible mistakes in recent EU history. The more divided, the better to them. — javi2541997

Exactly. And it was all part of a well-laid plan.

It is time to build something where we could be together and united. Even closer than in the European Union. I am thinking of a European organisation where our differences are put aside and we work for a common goal: European values. It will be something where doesn't matter if you are from Spain like me, UK like you Amity or Finland like ssu. It is not necessarily political. Like a citizens' movement. — javi2541997

I think that is easier said than done. There will always be differences. If it hasn't worked in the EU, then where and how would it work?

It is not so much about 'European values' - whatever they might be. But human values.
But that is not going to happen anytime soon.

It takes education and yeah, look who is in charge of that...

A citizens' movement not political but philosophical? Hah.
Not a chance in hell. One man's freedom an' all that.

.

Do we need this crisis to get real? Or is it now about going to war?
How civilised are we? Will the people even have a say in the matter? — Amity

The crisis is real and global. A number of factors account for the change in people's attitudes; but the salient point is that when they feel confident and optimistic, populations lean leftward; when they feel insecure and anxious, they lean right. Of course the self-declared strong father-figure doesn't protect them; he invariably makes their life harder and more perilous - but they somehow never twig to the pattern.
Under perceived threats from migrants, economic recessions, pandemic measures, loss of religious privilege, automation and international terrorism, people are open to offers of simple solutions. The far right always has simple solutions: blame a powerless minority and punish it. The left always has a more complicated plan it can't explain in terms that fit on a tractor-hat. More importantly, the left never promises its supporters special privileges.

The shift has already taken place, whatever the next election in Germany, Sweden or Canada throws up on top. Liberal parties have been pulled farther and farther rightward, leaving labour either out of touch or taking up what used to the center. The only thing that will reverse this trend is a wide enough popular dissatisfaction.
There is hope in that. The Trump regime is so drastic and crude in its actions, protests have already begun. People are finally noticing that he and his gang mean to carry out all the threats they made over the last several years. This extreme example might - just barely might - wake up other nations to the peril they're courting. His childishly spiteful trade and defence policies might - just possibly - spur greater co-operation among the countries where democracy is still alive. The extreme insanity of Trumpism just maybe possibly might perhaps trigger a global reaction against all similar agendas before it's too late.

As to Putin, nothing can be done about him short of assassination, and that will have to come from inside his government.

After the US neocon establishment got dealt a heavy blow, the equally abject European establishment is next in line. This is a good thing - the excising of a tumor that has been allowed to fester for much too long.

There is no crisis.

After the US neocon establishment got dealt a heavy blow, the equally abject European establishment is next in line. This is a good thing - the excising of a tumor that has been allowed to fester for much too long.

There is no crisis. — Tzeentch

There is a crisis, as described in the OP.
Your view that the European/Global crisis is a 'good thing' is noted.

A crisis for the elites, perhaps. But they can fry in their own grease for all I care.

I understand the scepticism due to past negative experiences, yet that cannot blur our hopes for the future! — javi2541997

The question I asked was 'real', about the future and pragmatic hopes. Not based on wishful fantasy.
Identifying real solutions to real problems. Not just for electioneering purposes but for long-term.

"Human values" are always more linked with this continent than anywhere else. We are not perfect, I know. But the amount of philosophers, artists, jurists, teachers, and all experts on humanities is priceless and beyond description. It seems to me that human values have not been well framed in some nations for a lot of different reasons. — javi2541997

Human values have been framed in many nations.
Liberty, Equality and Freedom - in the American Constitution.

It is in the regulation of these values, that we find tension and conflict.

As the preamble to the Constitution acknowledges, we established government precisely in order to “spread the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Government is not inimical to liberty; it is necessary for it.

John Locke himself observed that liberty without law is meaningless, and a free market cannot exist without government regulation. Our children will not enjoy the blessings of liberty if we destroy the environment, for example.

Liberty is meaningful only if we also exercise responsibility, both personal and collective. The question is how to regulate, not whether to regulate. If our goal is to ensure that each person can enjoy the blessings of liberty, then our philosophy must explain the democratic values of humanity, dignity, equality, community, responsibility and the common good. Nor are progressives averse to liberty; indeed, we care about it so much that we want the legal system to make it available to everyone, not just the privileged few. — Democratic Values and the American Constitution Society

A normal citizens' movement. It does not have to be technical. I am referring to the participation and the pursuit of European people for taking care of our continent. — javi2541997

What is a 'normal citizens' movement'?
How can a whole continent be 'taken care of' ?
What does that even mean?
Europe is diverse. Multiple viewpoints. That is its strength and also its weakness.

Brought up in jest earlier (Feb 13, 2025) and by

I think that we should ditch the geographical locations and look more towards national values. Like a EU but globally, for stable democracies who operate on human rights. — Christoffer

Like a defense alliance of democracies or something? Hey, I'm warming to the idea.

In terms of defense, it could be modeled somewhat after NATO, and otherwise maybe somewhat after the EU (also 1789, 1948). Ehh or whatever.

From a military-strategic perspective, it's harder to secure scattered regions, though reconnaissance/observation would be good, yet, surely the values are worth standing up for, human rights, civil liberties, various freedoms and protections, so this stuff would be prerequisites. Things like (nuclear) deterrence would be needed.

Some candidates alphabetically: maybe Argentina, Australia, maybe Botswana, Canada, maybe Chile, maybe Costa Rica, some European countries, Iceland, maybe India, Japan, New Zealand, maybe Singapore, maybe South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, maybe Ukraine after some further reforms, Uruguay, some US states, some ocean countries, ... (wicked cooperative)

In absence of "an outside threat", it's going to be difficult to get those together. What about mutual economic support, close to free trade, close to free migration (or visas), ...?

The crisis is real and global. — Vera Mont

Yes. Too much to deal with?

Under perceived threats from migrants, economic recessions, pandemic measures, loss of religious privilege, automation and international terrorism, people are open to offers of simple solutions.

The far right always has simple solutions: blame a powerless minority and punish it. The left always has a more complicated plan it can't explain in terms that fit on a tractor-hat. More importantly, the left never promises its supporters special privileges. — Vera Mont

I bolded the list of 'perceived threats'. We could address them one by one. And see where it takes us. Migrants:

'Get Brexit Done' - the simple electioneering slogan > overwhelming majority for Johnson's Tory party.
'Reform UK' - the name of Farage's party/company sounds like a positive change.

The issue of immigrants. People ignorant of their value e.g. in the NHS, tourism, agriculture, etc..
Not to mention they fill the gap in decreasing populations in different European countries.

Immigrants in Europe are an essential force that has a huge economic influence. Immigrants make significant contributions to labour markets, help innovations, and fill critical shortages of skills. The analysis of demographic trends shows the need for immigrants to keep European economies growing as its aging population diminishes. Diverse skills, unique perspectives, as well as strong work ethos that immigrant employees embody boosts general productivity in various sectors. — EIIR - The Importance of Immigrants in Boosting European Community

But it seems like another option is preferred. We must have more babies!
Farage has it sorted. Have you ever heard such nonsense?

“Of course family matters enormously, of course we need higher birth rates,” Farage told the event, adding that the UK and wider west had “kind of forgotten that what underpins everything is our Judeo-Christian culture, and that’s where we need to start”.

Restoring a “sense of optimism” that was last afoot in the 1980s and 1990s was essential to reversing decreasing fertility rates in the UK, Farage said.

Calling for some “very, very big cultural changes” to persuade Britons to have children, he went on: “We’ve got to start telling young kids that hard work is good, that success is good, that there are no shortcuts in life, that making money is good.”

[...]

The issue of declining birth rates in the west has been highlighted by Elon Musk and several other Maga-related figures. — Financial Times - Farage calls for more UK births

Oh yes, and their solution is to 'own' women and take away their rights. Make babies. Now!

Calling this “the law of the jungle,” the Daily Wire host then suggested that many women only know how to act civilly under the threat of physical violence, encouraging his audience to steer away from those women when seeking relationships.[...]

Though Klavan recognized that this was “not right” and “not good,” he also gave credit to far-right misogynist social media personality Andrew Tate for having “some kind of panache with young people because he says this out loud, and nobody ever says it out loud.”

Besides being a notorious “manosphere” influencer, Tate has been charged in Romania with rape, human trafficking and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. He’s also facing civil and criminal cases in the United Kingdom related to sexual assault and harassment.

“That doesn't create a responsibility in you to beat your wife,” Klavan concluded. “It creates responsibility in you to find a woman who will respect you so you can treat her as she deserves to be treated.” — The Independent

To return to shared values...

There are still European countries who retain a misogynistic attitude. A lot of homicide is femicide.
So, there is no such thing as a common value system. Just as you can't generalise about American values.

Progress made in all spheres to right wrongs, to value human rights...well, that is being systematically destroyed. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what is.

Like a defense alliance of democracies or something? Hey, I'm warming to the idea. — jorndoe

Yes, here's my entire post on that for reference.

I'd say that globally, nations with good human rights values and structures should go into an alliance. Based on low corruption and democratic values within each nation. Build a military security, free trade between themselves, free movement, and a strong political collaboration. Then cut out all the nations who can't live up to those standards only to invite them when they prove to be on that level. It gives an incentive to join the alliance/union, but also a security and protection against the undeveloped shitty nations who don't give a shit about human rights. It then becomes easier to pressure these nations on their violations to human rights. And they will not be able to form that great of an alliance themselves, since they operate on so much corruption and authoritarianism that they eventually implode. We can see it in the BRICS collaboration, that the foundation is so shaky it's a parody of actual international collaboration.

I think that we should ditch the geographical locations and look more towards national values. Like a EU but globally, for stable democracies who operate on human rights. Of course there's fine details in this, but as a broad concept, there's no reason the EU couldn't expand into being in alliance with countries like Canada and New Zeeland for example. Opening up free trade and travel like that will expand the power of the union into something more than just some defense against Europe spiraling back into world wars again. — Christoffer

Interesting enough, it seems Canada is warming up to the idea of approaching EU for further collaboration. Just imagine if mineral and material trade was to become free between the two, how business would flourish on both sides leaving the US out.

Because in my concept of an alliance based on national human rights and democratic ideals, the current US under Trump/Musk would not make the cut.

I asked GPT-o3 to make a fusion list that looks at democracy and corruption, since these are two lists. It took it longer than I've ever seen GPT to do this (3 min), which speaks of how complex it is to evaluate all of this, but here's the top 100 nations out of this calculation.

Below is an approximate composite ranking of 100 nations that tend to score very highly on both democratic stability and low corruption. (This list combines insights from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2022 and Transparency International’s CPI 2022. Because each index uses its own methodology, and because “stable democracy” and “low corruption” can be measured in different ways, this ranking is only an approximation and should be used with that caveat in mind.)

Top 100 (Approximate Composite Ranking):

1.  Norway
2.  New Zealand
3.  Finland
4.  Denmark
5.  Switzerland
6.  Sweden
7.  Netherlands
8.  Luxembourg
9.  Canada
10.  Australia
11.  Germany
12.  Ireland
13.  Austria
14.  Iceland
15.  Japan
16.  United Kingdom
17.  Estonia
18.  Slovenia
19.  Belgium
20.  Spain
21.  Portugal
22.  Chile
23.  Uruguay
24.  Costa Rica
25.  South Korea
26.  Czech Republic
27.  Poland
28.  Lithuania
29.  Latvia
30.  Slovakia
31.  France
32.  Israel
33.  Taiwan
34.  Italy
35.  Romania
36.  Bulgaria
37.  Croatia
38.  United States
39.  India
40.  Indonesia
41.  Mauritius
42.  Malta
43.  Cyprus
44.  Georgia
45.  Montenegro
46.  North Macedonia
47.  Albania
48.  Serbia
49.  Hungary
50.  Turkey
51.  South Africa
52.  Armenia
53.  Brazil
54.  Mexico
55.  Argentina
56.  Colombia
57.  Paraguay
58.  Ecuador
59.  Peru
60.  Bolivia
61.  Moldova
62.  Kosovo
63.  Jamaica
64.  Trinidad and Tobago
65.  Barbados
66.  Guyana
67.  Suriname
68.  Fiji
69.  Samoa
70.  Vanuatu
71.  Panama
72.  El Salvador
73.  Honduras
74.  Andorra
75.  San Marino
76.  Liechtenstein
77.  Monaco
78.  Ghana
79.  Namibia
80.  Senegal
81.  Cape Verde
82.  Malaysia
83.  Nepal
84.  Bhutan
85.  Philippines
86.  Sri Lanka
87.  Solomon Islands
88.  Papua New Guinea
89.  Kiribati
90.  Tuvalu
91.  Grenada
92.  Saint Kitts and Nevis
93.  Antigua and Barbuda
94.  Dominica
95.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
96.  Bahamas
97.  Belize
98.  Guatemala
99.  Bosnia and Herzegovina
100. Federated States of Micronesia — GPT-o3

Look at how many top nations are already members of the EU or in Europe. But there are really powerful nations at the top which could easily be part of a new powerful alliance.

Reform the EU into this and it would be a much more stable union for trade and military defense. It would also gain a larger geographical cover of resources. It would also need to have a clause that stipulates that any nation which falls back into corruption or risking its democracy will be excluded fromt he alliance. You can only, within these nations, vote to be part of the alliance, but the perpetual membership is based on how well human rights and democratic values are held up, including how free the nation is in speech and overall rights.

This would incentivize nations close to ridding themselves of corruption and becoming a proper democracy to opt into that work harder, effectively a big carrot to push unstable nations into stability. As well as a deterrence to uphold democratic values and civil/human rights.

If anything, it would work much better at the job the UN is supposed to do.

Call it "The Human Rights Alliance Act" or something and get a nice peaceful flag for it representing the betterment of humanity over tyranny and we can finally divide up the world into some resemblance of good and bad, with a clear goal for how to make society better.

The shift has already taken place, whatever the next election in Germany, Sweden or Canada throws up on top. Liberal parties have been pulled farther and farther rightward, leaving labour either out of touch or taking up what used to the center. The only thing that will reverse this trend is a wide enough popular dissatisfaction. — Vera Mont

Yes but now the slow boiled frog is damned near cooked. The trend is war and defence.
Already, big smiles and profits for defence companies and the arm manufacturing industry.
Popular dissatisfaction be damned.

There is hope in that. The Trump regime is so drastic and crude in its actions, protests have already begun. People are finally noticing that he and his gang mean to carry out all the threats they made over the last several years. This extreme example might - just barely might - wake up other nations to the peril they're courting. His childishly spiteful trade and defence policies might - just possibly - spur greater co-operation among the countries where democracy is still alive. The extreme insanity of Trumpism just maybe possibly might perhaps trigger a global reaction against all similar agendas before it's too late. — Vera Mont

There is always hope. On both sides of the equation. Some call it prayer. In God We Trust.
There are always possibilities, until the clamp down of prison, torture and death for those who protest.
Being criminalised for protest happens even in a so-called democracy like the UK.

What is happening is the fight for resources. Trump is bargaining for such in his Peace Deal with Russia. Ukraine side-lined. Trump longs not for Peace but for the Nobel Prize. Him and his pal, Musk.
They are bully boys extracting payment from their victims. With a bit of world domination on the side. Unfortunately, I doubt there will be a happy ending.

It should never have got this far. Hate-filled criminals charging about the world.
As if it were a game. The winners take it all...

There is already a global reaction - but how effective is it? There is nobody in charge...

.

European leaders gather for an emergency meeting after Trump snub
^{— Raf Casert, Sylvie Corbet, Dusan Stojanovic, Vanessa Gera, Justin Spike · AP via Defense News · Feb 17, 2025}

Looks like what they don't say out loud (and shouldn't), is that P01135809 + team first alienated friends and allies, then virtually stabbed them in the back, befriended authoritarians that P01135809 can't handle anyway (Putin is smarter, unfortunately). I'm sure P01135809 and Musk (rich folks) will be fine, whereas other Americans might find eggs pricey, while rambling on about "wokeness" or whatever cultural trend they dislike.

I'd suggest Canada, and maybe others, also are invited to a subsequent meeting (following the above I mean). But don't wait too long. P01135809 (and Putin) apparently ain't.

, can GPT combine more factors? In a way that's meaningful?

can GPT combine more factors? In a way that's meaningful? — jorndoe

It should be able to, especially the high end models. It all depends a bit on how the prompt and conversation with it is. Best is to feed it actual PDF reports, documents and research papers as it's then drawing from specific data. Going by its reasoning pattern it spent most of the time asking itself to be careful about the nuances between what constitutes a democracy and corruption, and how to form a value system to rank nations so that it incorporated the fact that some nations have a rigorous democracy, even though they also have high corruption...

Funny thing, it specifically mentioned the US when reasoning, as a state which was hard to pinpoint due to its high corruption. As a soulless system drawing on data, that kinda settles any debate on whether or not the US is heavily corrupt, seen as fleshy humans seem unable to debate such things past their biases.

The issue of immigrants. People ignorant of their value e.g. in the NHS, tourism, agriculture, etc..
Not to mention they fill the gap in decreasing populations in different European countries. — Amity

All those benefits are beside the point. European countries have a long tradition of national identity, national pride, patriotism; long histories of war for domination of other nations or liberation from other nations. Two thousand years of patriotic fervour, stoked by every monarch, prelate and premier who needed to raise and army doesn't go very far underground in one or two generations: the liberal veneer of prosperous times shatters at the first rousing "make us great again" speech in anxious times.

A scattering of immigrants who look, speak, cook, worship and dress differently is seen as a colourful and interesting novelty. Such immigrants assimilate quickly - certainly by the second generation - because, what choice do they have? A large influx of any one group of strangers can form its own distinct community, build churches, schools, cultural centers. It can elect representatives who become instruments of change in the government. That is a threat to the national identity in general and the individual native's self-image in particular. If those strangers are a different race and reproduce more than the average native (in the first couple of generations; once they're achieved economic parity, their family profile conforms to the norm.) and couple across racial divides (as young people will!) they're seen as a threat to the very ethnicity of the native population. Nationalists fear that their own descendants will bear no resemblance to themselves. These are compelling fears!

There are always possibilities, until the clamp down of prison, torture and death for those who protest.
Being criminalised for protest happens even in a so-called democracy like the UK. — Amity

Protests in the US can grow quite heated and Americans, unlike most civilian populations, are heavily armed. Violent clashes are inevitable; the regime has not yet had time (if they're even competent to do it) to organize an effective enforcement agency. Civil war may yet be averted, but if they get frightened enough, the Trumpites will surely call for martial law. Then it will depend on which side the federal, state and municipal armed forces take. (My guess is, half and half, which ensures a long and costly civil war, like the last one.)

Will that be enough to galvanize the still-sensible nations? I hope so.... I'm still feeding all those things with feathers outside my window.

If P01135809 keeps bullying Canada to become part of the US, then I suggest Canadian voters first be allowed to vote on the US candidates from the last US election, even though it's late. ;) Add the new votes to those previously found, determine election winner, done. Think the current administration would accept?

Trump Says He’s Serious About Wanting Canada to Become 51st U.S. State
^{— Jill Colvin, Darlene Superville · TIME, AP · Feb 9, 2025}

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

We do not negotiate with terrorists. — Vera Mont

How true is that? Who said it? Is it just a good soundbite used by Bush/Obama?

It begs a few questions: Who is 'We', who are the 'terrorists', what does it mean to 'negotiate'. And what are the alternatives?

It's a stated policy by most Western governments, related to hostage situations. This doesn't mean that negotiations with hostile countries should not take place.

Is this the same as the deal-making, transactional approach so beloved by the US President?
The criminal and outlaw who is destroying human rights and laws to be the dictator or King?
Who pardoned the domestic terrorists jailed for following his cause, his hatred for anyone who opposes him. Those who tried and failed to put him down. Now taking spiteful revenge. Look out!

He, who is now making his own laws to benefit self. Who is making deals with fellow terrorists and war criminals. Who is now blaming the victims of terrorism, war perpetrated by Putin for not making a deal? It's all their fault. Really?

Trump blames Ukraine over war with Russia, saying it could have made a deal
President hits back at Ukraine’s complaint that it has been left out of US-Russia talks, saying it had years to make a deal ‘without the loss of much land’

Sean Savett, who was spokesperson for the White House National Security Council under then president Joe Biden, said in a social media post: “Sounds like Trump bought Putin’s propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

“A reminder no one should need: Putin started the war by invading Ukraine unprovoked and his forces have committed war crimes against the Ukrainian people. Russia is the party responsible for this war continuing.”

European leaders are increasingly fearful that Trump is giving too many concessions to Russia in his pursuit of the Ukraine deal that he promised to seal even before taking office. But Trump insisted that his only goal was “peace” to end the largest land war in Europe since the second world war. Trump said he was “much more confident” of a deal after the talks, adding: “They were very good. Russia wants to do something. They want to stop the savage barbarianism. — The Guardian

The criminal is not satisfied with creating chaos and fear in his own land, he is spreading his 'peace' all over the world.

'We do not negotiate with terrorists'. Oh, yes, we do. It seems we must. In an attempt to prevent more war. War that suits and benefits the arms industry and more. Money directed to war or defence that could be better spent elsewhere.

For the enrichment of citizens. To improve lives. From poverty to the basics. Shelter and food.
Not even close to the honeyed golden showers of riches poured from one MAGA trillionaire to other terrorist billionaires.

The world and its resources will pay the price. For criminals and their greed.
Countries or their leaders will be bought. Is there a law against that?

What good is talk and protest? Delusional madmen do not listen. They live to create fear and terrorise, to gain even more wealth and power.

It was ever thus. Humans never seem to learn until it is too late...

I had to check out what you meant by PO1135809.
I know that the US President is a criminal, but didn't realise that he was given an inmate number.
Unfortunately, this and his mugshot are seen as a badge of honour. And money-making.

For now, I just refer to him as 'criminal'. It's simpler. The power he now has to disrupt the whole world is beyond belief. He is a domestic and global terrorist of the first order. And should be treated as such.

There is a European and Global Crisis. We know where and how the 'Ukraine Crisis' started and where it led. Are we to wait until there is conflagration and the most hellish of wars?
Where the cowardly perpetrators stand back and watch people and their worlds being destroyed...

Would you rather see the war continue?

Protests in the US can grow quite heated and Americans, unlike most civilian populations, are heavily armed. Violent clashes are inevitable; the regime has not yet had time (if they're even competent to do it) to organize an effective enforcement agency. Civil war may yet be averted, but if they get frightened enough, the Trumpites will surely call for martial law. Then it will depend on which side the federal, state and municipal armed forces take. (My guess is, half and half, which ensures a long and costly civil war, like the last one.)

Will that be enough to galvanize the still-sensible nations? I hope so.... I'm still feeding all those things with feathers outside my window. — Vera Mont

Yes. Past, persistent protests changed the status quo. At a hefty price. And all of these gains are being destroyed with a wholesale ripping up of rights. At the stroke of a criminal's pen. How he gloats.

The criminal can do what he likes. The potential for violence and war is real. He is a terrorist.

Other nations know this. Some are with him, some against and others still willing to negotiate.

In the UK, we have Starmer who seems to be an 'appeaser', who seems to relish the role of middle-man between Europe and America. And other leaders still want, or need, to keep America on board.

The criminal seeks to have the glory and public demonstration of approval by King Charles III.
Ah well...there ya go...
Is there a deal to be made?

Would you rather see the war continue? — Tzeentch

Do you think that will be the end of it?

Appeasing Putin is not the end of it. Not by a long chalk.

Appeasing Putin is not the end of it. — Amity

What proof do you have of that?

What proof do you have of that? — Tzeentch

History of appeasement. Psychology.

Dictators are never satisfied with concessions or deals. They want more. European and Global expansion is in their sights. It's a double act.

Empires of ego.

It looks to me as the choice for the US is between fascism and civil war. Either will produce a big decline in global influence and possibly economic collapse.

Russia is already collapsing - needing the support of N Korea even to give a semblance of continuing the war. China now owns the world, though it too has economic troubles.

The place to look is at the collapse of the Roman Empire into corruption, and possibly Europe has enough of a cultural memory not to succumb yet again.

But everything depends on the economy. Economic decline is always blamed on the government (in the UK's case it was the EU 'government'), until the fascists are the government, and thereafter on foreigners. Thus economic decline leads inexorably towards fascism. The only hope is to identify the real cause of decline - the climate. Our accumulated labour of buildings and infrastructure and cultivation, aka the manmade environment is being burned, drowned, or blown away, and we are poorer.

Unfortunately this coincides with the left in a major transition from being the party of labour to being the party of the disenfranchised. Labour as such, trade unions, have lost their economic power due to automation, leaving the left scrambling for the same tawdry populist garb as the right. Thus in the UK, labour are in power, but their policies are indistinguishable from rightwing policies.

Humans are even losing their importance in the conduct of war, which Ukraine is showing can be largely better carried out by robotic machines guided by AI. Now if humans en mass no longer have economic or strategic value, can their moral worth sustain them in a godless world, that has reduced morality to sentiment and mere whim? We are all foreigners now.

So you have no proof? Nothing remotely tangible? Just some vague allusions to WW2 and Hitler?