About half a year ago I remarked the following:

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch

And what do we see?

The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.

There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.


I've predicted this would happen.

Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.

Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.

Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.

Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.


Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.

Europe's next.

Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play — Tzeentch

So you mean that the blob has won again and Trump turned into a blob crypto-puppet?

Flipping Ukraine pro-western has been a decades-long project of the Neocon foreign policy blob, under leadership of chief blob Nuland. — Tzeentch

Many presidents, including Trump and Obama, tried to change the course of US foreign policy, but were unable to fight 'the Blob'. — Tzeentch

The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle?

The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle is a precondition to return to stability in Eastern Europe, which the Russians have been signaling is what they are interested in ever since the war began. — Tzeentch

You said lots of things... you know

The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle? — neomac

Is that not exactly what they are doing? They've all but said that the Russians were right all along, while pinning the principal blame on Ukraine.

I never said the mea culpa had to be sincere or believable. Just that it had to happen in order for negotiations with the Russians to have any chance of success.

And despite being a precondition to peace, if the Europeans can be successfully goaded into continuing the conflict without the US, that's of course a massive new obstacle to peace. But that won't be Washington's problem after they've extricated themselves.

Just heard from Sir Bill Browder that he was talking to EU leaders at the summit the other day, about releasing the frozen Russian Funds to support Ukraine.
Apparently it is being seriously considered which would add another €300billion to the war chest.

I don’t know who was responsible for delaying this move. Trump claims it was Belgium, but who would believe a word he says?

Europe's next.

Excuse me.
The U.S. is morally weak right now and Russia is bankrupt (her economy before the war was equivalent to a mid range European country).

Indeed it was and we learnt about it only later. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons are a serious topic now for Europe to discuss. Europe can easily get it's conventional gear to defend itself, but what is lacking is the nuclear balance. And how will the nuclear deterrence be formed? UK and France have about 500 nuclear weapons, but they are for national defense.

Baerbock let it slip the other day that the EU is prepairing €700billion aid package for Ukraine. Apparently it was being kept quiet until after the German election. Looks like Europe is going to step up to the plate after all. — Punshhh

It's totally possible. Germany already hinted at how this is done. The American way: just increase the debt, and you don't have to cut social welfare and other costs.

It was always going to happen, with or without US help. The day Putin threatened Europe with nuclear attack the day of the invasion, European history changed. Now they will re-arm and take care of their own security. — Punshhh

Actually, Trump was crucial here. All the pivot talk to Asia was one thing. Even in Munich Zelenskyi was told by a delegation of Democrat and Republican senators that Ukraine will have the backing of the US. Now Trump has shown his real intensions of simply giving Ukraine on a platter to Russia. Trump is now basically doing a deal about Eastern Europe as Ribbentrop did with Molotov, which surely won't go unnoticed in countries that were divided back then.

Congress has not uttered a squeak about anything Trump has done since the election. Not a word, not a raised eyebrow. If Trump says jump, their only response will be How high? — Wayfarer

That's not true. Republicans are speaking out now.

The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle? — neomac


Is that not exactly what they are doing? They've all but said that the Russians were right all along, while pinning the principal blame on Ukraine.

I never said the mea culpa had to be sincere or believable. Just that it had to happen in order for negotiations with the Russians to have any chance of success.

And despite being a precondition to peace, if the Europeans can be successfully goaded into continuing the conflict without the US, that's of course a massive new obstacle to peace. But that won't be Washington's problem after they've extricated themselves. — Tzeentch

It is exactly what they are NOT doing. Russians were right all along they say, all right, but they are blaming Ukraine, Europe, and Biden administration. Not the Americans represented by Trump. And it’s not matter of Russia being right for pro-Russian propaganda purposes but of Ukraine and Europe being blamed for the conflict, since Trump could have put all the blame on just Biden’s administration alone. By doing this Trump seems to advocate for total surrender by Ukraine to all Russia’s demands and burdening Europe of the consequences.
All this doesn’t seem to add up with things you said elsewhere. Indeed, despite belonging to the neoliberal blob (as you claimed) the foreign policy of artificially sparkle geopolitical tensions between Europeans and Russians to be more free to pivot to Asia, now it’s Trump that is doing it on steroids, the one you claimed was fighting the neoliberal blob to change American foreign policy. The problem is that Trump changed American foreign policy in ways that are not dictated by the neoliberal approach to American foreign policies (the one that Mearsheimer was bitterly criticising and you were following) but still it is against Europe (in a way that is perfectly in line with Mearsheimer’s idea of sphere of influence where Russia should ally with the US against China). So now not only Russia is threatening Europe (however it is much weaker than it used to be before starting the war) but also the US is threatening Europe. And while insisting on the Russia’s penchant to bond with Europeans just for business (with apparently no threats for Europeans worth warning people about), you have always ignored the Russian penchant for a privileged link with the US to reach a superpower status (perfectly in line with Russian imperialism) and contain China and other Asian countries’ imperial aspirations (like that of Turkey or Iran) which can both weakend Russia’s influence in the Middle East or Caucasus or north Africa or Mediterranean Sea.
What I also find rather baffling in your reasoning is that while you can so easily condemn Western provocations against Russia you do not seem to put any condamnation on Western populism which was provoking the US as you so candidly admit. And if you have predicted that Russia was threatening to wreck Ukraine as a consequence of Western provocations or Ukrainian independence, you seemed very hopeful the US (the Great Satan with plenty of lackeys in Europe, according to you) would have NOT found ways to backfire at European provocations and anti-American emancipation (by European populists whose delusional aspirations do not beed to be condemned). Not to mention that populist anti-Americanism in Europe was also supported by Russia (at least until now since Trump is openly trying to steal European far-right populism from Russian claws) as much as the US was supporting anti-Russian feelings in Ukraine.
The paradox of your reasoning is that on one side you are ready to sacrifice the Ukrainian emancipation from Russia in the name of the European emancipation from the US (so apparently self-determination for Europeans and Palestinians it’s fine but for Ukrainians and Israelis no), on the other side you keep reasoning as if Europeans or the European populism had greater chances to emancipate Europe from the US (the Great Satan which betrays all allies and has all europeans as their vassals) than the Ukrainians to emancipate Ukraine from Russia (which is just happy to have a piece of Ukraine for its existential survival and then just do business as usual with Europeans).

It's quite unclear to me what points of mine you are responding to. Rather, it seems like you've picked snippets of things I've said, removed the context and assumed I was making definitive arguments.

Without providing quotes of what I said, I cannot gauge whether you're representing what I said properly. My initial impression is that for the most part you are not.


About Trump running against the neocon establishment, here are my thoughts:

On the surface, Trump certainly seems to be running against the neocon establishment. This is undeniable.

However, surface level appearances do not always tell the whole story, and I find it perfectly plausible that Trump is being used as the 'bull in a China shop' on which a bunch of necessary but unpopular actions can be blamed.

If Trump's actions suddenly start to make sense in a broader picture - in this case, that of America pivoting to Asia - it is only natural to hypothesize about goings-on beneath the surface.

The foreign policy blob is powerful, and they might be using Trump or even working together with him to bring the US on this new course.

I think many analysts, including Mearsheimer, are too quick to assume Washington is simply being dim-witted and incompetent, and never ask the question whether all of this display could be part of a strategy.


Lastly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-Washington.

only seven million deaths in the world and one million in the US — ssu

You're giving my calculator a headache

, if cooperating sufficiently, Europe can deal with Putin (keeping it out of NATO offices), including in Ukraine.

Except:

Europe can easily get it's conventional gear to defend itself, but what is lacking is the nuclear balance — ssu

There's also a matter of US intelligence.

Either way, European cooperation, sooner rather than later, seems the way to go.

There's also a matter of US intelligence. — jorndoe

Satellite technology isn't limited as it was in the 1970's. When there's a will, there's a way.

Either way, European cooperation, sooner rather than later, seems the way to go. — jorndoe

Hope this happens. The worst thing is simply to deny what just happened or then think that the best way would be to wait for Trump's term in office to run out.

You're giving my calculator a headache — magritte

Well, of course it can be "fake news", but here's the source. Wikipedia gives similar statistics (here)

That's not true. Republicans are speaking out now. — RogueAI

Anything you can point to? I've seen a couple of low-profile Senators grumbling about it, but overall, State Department and all the heavy hitters are toeing the line.

GOP only has 53 senators. If just a couple break ranks, that can be very significant.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-zelensky-john-cornyn-thune-b2701516.html

Yes, but note

Several GOP senators balked at Trump’s anti-Ukraine rhetoric and have spoken out in defense of Zelenksy, treading a careful line not to alienate the U.S. President.

How much difference do you think that is going to make?

This development, with Trump openly supporting Putin, is by far the most serious international and foreign policy crisis since 9/11.

I don't know. There's a deep reservoir of hate for Putin the in the old GOP members. They might balk at this. I can't say. The whole thing is a cult, but some of the GOP politicians are going along for politics, not for any cultish reasons. If their election is six years away, and they feel strongly on this, they might just tell Trump F-U. All it would take is 3.

Memories of the McCarthy trials. Anti commy sentiment runs deep.

This development, with Trump openly supporting Putin, is by far the most serious international and foreign policy crisis since 9/11. — Wayfarer

Far more serious, actually. Terrorist attacks were a minor issue than actually Europe-scale war.

I think it's the most serious crisis in Europe since the Cold War. Pax Americana has died. Thanks to Trump, Europe took a giant step towards war. Russia is now putting it's sights on the Baltic. Next thing is for Putin to make Trump to ask that US forces would be withdrawn from Eastern Europe.

It's a very bleek and dark future ahead of us.

Some people want to repeat history.

Hill spoke at the Helsinki Commission 22 days before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

Why Putin Invaded Ukraine: A Crisis Manufactured to Rewrite the Global Order | Fiona Hill on 2/2/22
^{— Helsinki Commission · Nov 13, 2024 · 13m:23s}


Hilton interviewed Hill in 2023:

Why Trump befriended Putin | The life and philosophy of Fiona Hill
^{— The Institute of Art and Ideas · Oct 19, 2023 · 11m:13s}

Jeffrey Sachs bringing to European ears something which, apparently, is not common knowledge here.

This man has 36 years of experience with the Soviet Union, Russia and Eastern Europe. He knows. He provides first-hand accounts of events, and direct quotes from high ranking US officials which will tell you exactly what Washington's role is and was in this conflict.

I know most of you will not be able to stomach what he says. The cognitive dissonance is too great. But whatever. People can hide from the truth until the cows come home, while more sensible people take over the wheel.

With Trump's election, whatever you may think of it, voices like those of Sachs are no longer systematically suppressed in favor of state propaganda.

By the way, all of the sidelining of the Europeans and the Ukrainians seems to tell us a thing or two about who was right about whether or not to assign these actors with much agency.

When Trump parrots Kremlin's lines, nothing else could better justify Putin's actions.

Pax Americana is dead and we are closer to war, if Europe doesn't get it's act together. Or at least form a willing coalition. Because Putin won't stop and he already has his sights on next targets.

(Financial Times)Russia used the first round of talks with the US over ending the war in Ukraine to demand the withdrawal of Nato forces from the alliance’s eastern flank, triggering concern in Europe that the Trump administration could acquiesce to seal a peace deal, Romania’s government said.

Cristian Diaconescu, the Romanian president’s chief of staff and adviser for defence and national security, said on Wednesday that the US delegation had rejected Moscow’s demand, but that there were no guarantees that Washington would not eventually make this concession to Vladimir Putin.

It's likely as Trump is Putin's poodle, he will likely give in. Likely it will be announced as "pivoting against China". Likely Trump will unleash a similar attack towards Europe as he did against Zelenskyi, if (and hopefully when) Europe stands with Ukraine.

And badmouthing Zelenskyi is done obviously to sell the Americans the surrender deal of throwing Ukraine under the bus. And Trump can surely throw other European countries under the bus too.

Never said such thing. In the end even the most ruthless dictatorship has to have a "domestic support", namely of the security apparatus. Putin has his followers, just as Trump has his followers. But likely not everybody is in Russia happy about Putin's adventures, but who are they to say it, when you can be sent to jail for speaking out. — ssu

Yes, I missed your definition of "domestic political support" to include the "security apparatus", which removes nearly the entire meaning of the expression to reducing essentially to a truism that those in power have by definition some basis for their power, and it would be only relevance in literally the last moments of a regimes nominal titles when it has lost control of the security apparatus during a coup.

However, even with your definition your framework is still wrong as the security apparatus keeping people in power is not by definition domestic but can easily be partly, or even wholly, foreign controlled, in term of finance and intelligence resources and even the people.

I'm not sure this part of the debate is relevant to continue, though feel free to, but just wanted to address a couple of points, especially where I misinterpreted you, before getting back into the current debate.

Generally, I am still intending to make a new thread on these more general themes.

So how much is Russia winning now and which step are we on? — ssu

Do you not follow the news?

Russia using chemical choking agents in Ukraine, US says — Russia using chemical choking agents in Ukraine, US says

Problem that was encountered was that this playbook is no working, to such an extent the neocons have been ousted from power.

↪ssu By the way, all of the sidelining of the Europeans and the Ukrainians seems to tell us a thing or two about who was right about whether or not to assign these actors with much agency. — Tzeentch

They were agents in their own unagency Tzeentch, authors of their own writing themselves out of the script entirely.

Do you not follow the news? — boethius

I do. Do you follow the thread, as you refer to two months ago? A lot happened this week.

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever.

As Trump is crushing the Atlanticism, and ending Pax Americana, Putin can be very happy. Alexander Dugin stated that this was the (and should be the goal) of Russia, and thanks to Trump, Putin is achieving his objectives.

Just as actually a Finnish politician that I really loathe, is for the first time saying something that I have to agree with: Trump can also throw Finland under the bus as he has done with Ukraine.

↪Tzeentch When Trump parrots Kremlin's lines, nothing else could better justify Putin's actions.

Pax Americana is dead and we are closer to war, if Europe doesn't get it's act together. Or at least form a willing coalition. Because Putin won't stop and he already has his sights on next targets. — ssu

Perhaps, given everything that was told by mainly @Tzeentch, the late @Isaac and myself, you would consider for a moment that propaganda has lead you astray.

As Neutrality Studies has pointed out repeatedly, if the EU genuinely believed Russia represented a military threat they would be building up like crazy! But they don't.

Why?

Because they don't view Russia as a genuine military threat to the EU.

Russia has only conquered Russian speaking, ethnically Russian, and also Russian identifying (to a large extent), regions in Ukraine (large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy).

Russia is simply not conquering, nor shows any signs of intending to conquer, anyone who is not fundamentally cool with being conquered.

Then there's the problem of nuclear weapons, which two EU countries have along with the United States.

In addition to that there's the problem of no feasibly conquerable EU territory having any resources worth conquering.

However, this is not to say there won't be further war, only that my prediction is that it will not be started or desired by Russia but engineered by European countries in order to justify the current trajectory, in particular in terms of totalitarianism.

As the Finnish professor Glenn Diesen recently noted, I believe on the Duran if memory serves me, along with calling the Finnish president a traitor (which he is), the Finnish population has been and is being prepared for war by Finnish media and Finnish politicians, and the mood has changed to war with Russia being inevitable.

Now, this was a policy undertaken during the Biden administration, so it may change, but I doubt it. Mark my words, however, that the war will not be instigated by Russia but rather by Finland.

Finland is a small country that can easily be sacrificed for the greater EU good, which in this case is defined by maintaining a state of total delusion.

Ok, but what does any of that have to do with anything Jeff Sachs or I said?

Well said.