In one of his recent efforts to undermine rule of law, Trump has suspended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Trade Practices Act.

Americans and American companies are now free to bribe officials in foreign countries. This encourages extortion - representatives of US companies could previously reject demands for bribes by virtue of the fact that they would be breaking US law.

FYI, here's a chat I had with someone fairly intelligent ("AA"), that I know. I sent them roughly this message (Feb 15, 2025) (names and such removed/replaced):

AA: you missed everything. And the CIA missed the GOP candidate in Butler PA.
AA: The main goal is to destroy the Deep State. There's going to be a lot of collateral damage.
me: Like the state? :smile:
me: Canada, Greenland, ..., don't want to be enrolled in the US, by the way. Is the alienation part of destroying "the Deep State"? // You know that Xi and Putin are having a field day, yes?
AA: Yes. One of the main promises was Schedule F, which would destroy many bureaucracies. These agencies over time have suffered capture by the CIA and DNC. They both do good and bad, are slush funds for unapproved spending, fund NGOs which then catalyze coups. // It's time to destroy the state as we know it. A lot of guilty and innocent people will be destroyed in the process.
me: "he would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes" // — Varys · https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2178798/characters/nm0384152 // "an evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes" // — someone · https://www.truthorfiction.com/sun-tzu-rule-over-ashes-quote/
me: so what does Canada / Greenland have to do with any of that?
AA: It's not the 'nation' that's being burned. It's the Deep State. Trump is extremely pro-nation, a libertarian nationalist. He's anti-other-nations, anti-couping other nations, and old school populist/industrialist/working-man-jobist. // Canada and Greenland are strategic.
me: Whuzzat mean? Concretely, I mean. // (Then there's Panama, Mexico, Mar-a-Gaza.)
AA: Canada being a state aids in the oncoming multi-polar world. Both countries would be stronger and more prosperous for it. // Greenland will provide future shipping route, minerals, and a stronger northern position which China and Russia would we weaker due to. // Panama and Mexico are obvious. // Gaza is weird. It's a failed defeated state. The US would have an economic and geopolitical foothold there by rebuilding it along with other Arab nations. The main goal being to unify that area making Iran an uninvited party.
me: so, annexation?
AA: territories, states...
me: Canada and Greenland become parts of the US? // (Or should I read your comments differently)?
AA: Yes. If the argument can be made.
me: You don't see any problem here?
AA: No. I'm a fan of the Monopoly on Violence....because hostile states among us believe in it.
me: what if you're wrong?
AA: Those that execute the monopoly on violence find themselves in a state of being wrong, when they over use that argument and other with that same right execute it against them. // At that time a state can as, if losing in a conflict where and when they would have done something differently. // ...keeping in mind the idea of "wrong" and "right" are strategic rather than moral.
me: what if you're wrong on whatever rationale/assumptions? // A country turning on itself is the supreme victory of adversaries.
AA: That's what's happening right now in the USA. The USA has been terribly violent (regime change, coups, wars) since WWII. It's people are reassessing how the next 50 years looks and it's more isolationist. So securing the region according to the Munroe Doctrine and preparing for multipolarity is the better pathway.
me: I meant what if your rationale/assumptions are off? (you've expressed a few here)
AA: As in "mistakes". It's game theoretical.
me: well, mistakes with inter/national consequences. (Have you run simulations or something?)
AA: Making mistakes, not taking risks, .... all of it has consequences. // Of course not. But we may be entering an age wherein AI is making the tough decisions.
me: What consequences are you seeing? // Say, what if you're off about CIA in general or specifically (above)?
AA: _ is censoring my discussing this.

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

Sounds like a typical conspiracy theorist, who constructs an entire scenario in his mind, often in collaboration with others of a like mind. Facts are interpreted through the lens of his conspiracy: if consistent with the theory, it confirms it and may extend it.

Or..."AA" is an alcoholic (former member of AA) who fell off the wagon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like the courts are blocking most of these bogus executive orders. Not too surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things are moving swiftly in Europe. Perhaps peace is on the horizon.

US, Ukraine agree to terms of critical minerals deal

https://www.reuters.com/world/zelenskiy-plans-travel-us-meet-trump-minerals-deal-sources-say-2025-02-25/

Your government at work.

Gabbard Says More Than 100 Intelligence Officers Fired for Chat Messages
The chats had been set up to discuss sensitive security matters. But a group of employees used them for discussions that contained sexual themes, intelligence officials said this week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/us/politics/gabbard-nsa-firing-explicit-chat.html

It turns out the intel community is just a bunch of redditors.

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

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

The ambition of the Soviet State to control adjacent countries has been preserved under a new set of justifications.

The Chechen wars are a vivid example of a Soviet policy becoming a new Russia modus operandi. The methods of population displacement and favoring a fawning regime are identical.

US, Ukraine agree to terms of critical minerals deal — NOS4A2

Now they just have to find a way to get their hands on that good stuff in Donbas.

Extortion (and on Putin's wishlist):

Exclusive: US could cut Ukraine's access to Starlink internet services over minerals, say sources
^{— Andrea Shalal, Joey Roulette, Marisa Taylor, Idrees Ali, Don Durfee, Dave Gregorio, Emelia Sithole-Matarise, Daniel Wallis · Reuters · Feb 22, 2025}

, I was just going to suggest that ask the folks in the three Baltic states, the Swedes, Finns, Poles, Ukrainians, ... It's been covered in other threads, though.

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

Society and world orders evolve, what was once one thing evolves into something else. Most things in society started out as one thing and evolved into something else. Police forces were a pretty new thing as we see them today, so why don't police forces still act on orders by the head of state, acting from their orders? Because it evolved.

Alliances evolves too, what NATO was is not what NATO is today. Today it's an alliance to protect against mostly corrupt states from making hostile actions. And I would say it functions as its intended. Russia is not very keen on invading the Baltics for instance, even though those nations are pretty easy to conquer, much more easy than Ukraine.

Mostly, it's people who aren't even living in proximity to hostile states who complain about NATO. It's another reality for those who live close to and having their borders constantly violated by a hostile nation.

But as I've discussed earlier, I think a new alliance needs to be formed. That is defined by democratic stability and low corruption. In which it's not just an alliance in military power, but for all things like free trade and travel. It would more easily brand itself as an alliance of the "good".

Because people argue over the origin of NATO constantly in some belief that such a thing even matters today. It doesn't. And arguing about it is as useless as arguing over who has the right to a land based on hundreds of year old decisions.

The modern world, after the wall fell, internationally evolved into better agreement about how borders were drawn. It's become part of how the world argues for peace. And through trade agreements and travel, most nations have settled into a better society without invading each other. But there still are rotten eggs trying to behave like the old times and NATO went from an alliance of the cold war to an alliance to protect this new world order, against those nations which tries to play the old games.

Imagine that we dismantled NATO tomorrow, it's gone. There's no more NATO... *POOF*
And then the day after tomorrow, the nations of the world gathered around and discussed forming a new alliance to help protect each other, leading to a new military alliance, under a new name, say "Alliance of Military Protection Internationale", AMPI for short. Most of the old NATO members, who already have a good military collaboration, sign up for it, forming basically the same composition of nations as NATO, only, it's not called AMPI and is not formed based on the old reasons, but primarily out of the modern condition and nation's need for an alliance of protection.

What has effectively changed in that scenario? Other than basically changing the name?

I see what you're saying, but the US put trillions into NATO because it was defending itself by containing communism. The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us?

Hmm Well, diversification seems attractive these days. (Hence posting in this thread.)

If Canada Wants a Plan B for Trade, Europe Could Be the Answer
^{— Arthur Dennyson Hamdani · The Walrus · Feb 25, 2025}

There's been some chatter about defense as well.

France convenes second meeting on Ukraine with other Europeans, Canada
^{— John Irish, Michel Rose, GV De Clercq · Reuters · Feb 18, 2025}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive. Coupled with being badly informed or misinformed, we get what people consider irrational on the outside. But it appears very rational; just mean and low. Culture wars that do not exist but we will meddle with your elections, EU presumably created to screw the US, so here's some tariffs. Basically, if you're not part of the incrowd (e.g. goosestepping Trump's line), you will be fucked. Both abroad and in the USA. It somehow reminded me of this:

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

Just look at his official photo.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's a form of rationality in that we can follow and predict his reasoning.

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

But he and his cronies will profit so this doesn't matter.

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

Of course, get rich or die trying. The illusion "this" could be yours is why most people buy (into) shit.

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

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

I see what you're saying, but the US put trillions into NATO because it was defending itself by containing communism. The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us? — frank

The US has at the moment the historically delusional idea of isolationism. The collaborations through NATO is not contained within the operation of NATO. It's like installing tax incentives on something which boosts an influx of tourists, the tax incentive is essentially a loss of tax income, but it boosts the economy anyway through the resulting tourism.

What I mean is that economy doesn't work like you're hinting at. Trillions into NATO over its entire lifetime is nothing compared to the unquantified income of how other transactions have been between the nations within this alliance.

Such an alliance becomes a security to do further business between nations as it is as much a prevention of war against NATO members as it is between NATO members. Effectively it becomes a somewhat better deterrence than both threats or the UN.

Society isn't a company in which everything is a basic balance sheet. It's operating on so many hidden parameters that anyone just looking at costs fail to see the benefits and future gains. It's not something that can be looked at in quarter-term results.

And how do you know that the US isn't defended through NATO? The very point of NATO is deterrence, it's not just defense whenever there's an actual war. What if leaving NATO actually opens up the US to threats far greater than things have been if they would have stayed in NATO? That the fact that a military strength like Russia didn't go that well in Ukraine shows that there's a lot of hubris in the idea of just military might. Comparably, look at all the American hubris throughout history, Vietnam war, Gulf war etc.

On top of that, NATO isn't just military collaboration, it's intelligence. The members share intelligence information that isn't visible as pure military. And the US also has a lot of defensive bases that are part of defense lines for the US as a first line of defense further away from the US borders; these are NATO collaborations. So without NATO, intelligence information might be cut off and these defensive lines disappear.

I don't think most Americans understand anything about NATO. And showing by how the US citizens voted, I don't think most of them have even basic understandings of foreign politics or how the world actually works in trade and collaborations.

But if NATO disappears, then there will just be a new alliance among the other nations. It's too effective as deterrence and security to just be removed, regardless of the US involvement or not.

But the US shouldn't be as naive as to think they're untouchable if they leave NATO. It's more than just a numbers game.

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

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

I'd wish the conspiracy theorists all unite under their own flag, make a unity of bullshit and fascism so it's easier to categorize them as extremists and fight them. Right now, they're so scattered and so undefined that it's impossible to fight against it while they're also too stupid and disorganized to ever do any serious harm. They simply act as a big iron chain to society, holding back good progress, holding back improvements and holding back fighting climate change.

They're a sickness that holds society in bed, making everyone apathetic and without energy. Honestly, I hate them all and despise their disgusting stupidity. The negative consequences to society over time is larger than people seem realize.

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

I agree.

And how do you know that the US isn't defended through NATO? — Christoffer

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

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

You think warfare is only military means and explosions? People listed all those things as well for Russia and then it turned out the military strength wasn't enough. Then we can also look at how a single Swedish submarine sunk one of the USs largest cruisers during a Baltic exercise.

And looking at the innovation rate of China, what would happen if China went to full scale war with the US after leaving NATO?

NATO is not just a numbers game for military spending and hardware, it's an alliance of collaboration, of spreading out into the world as an extended shield. Imagine a US crippled by internal politics, not in NATO, cut off from intelligence collaborations.

And also add all other things I said, that the consequences of being in NATO is also affecting collaboration outside of NATO as the collaborative security also means higher safety trading and collaborating between NATO members in other areas.

If this was a RTS (strategy game), you're the type of player who would just produce as many soldiers and vehicles as possible and then be surprised by someone utilizing their resources better to hit your weak spots rather than just using brute force. Like the single submarine taking out the cruiser because it was technologically superior going against hubris.

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

A kindly gesture by the British king and PM, who appears to be acting above the typical fear and loathing as indicated by the media narratives, even while the cameras are running. Knowing the froth this might bring among the moral commissars and busybodies, the public display might prove politically inconvenient, or it could signal the waning relevance of that class of intelligentsia.

Should the public display only mask the private ones as it does in other countries, I guess we’ll soon find out.

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

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

Why do you need NATO?

Let's see.

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

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

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

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

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

Right. Let's think about that.

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

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