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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the reality of their immense brilliance:

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I agree entirely. He's not a good diplomat in the sense of fostering good long term relations maybe, but I think he does have a very good sense of where the leverage is, and he's using it to get what he wants. And I think that is the problem for Europe, he has a lot of leverage on us because we have let ourselves become dependant on the US... and so i don't think he's particulary worried about alienating Europe because of that.

With Russia I think he knows there isn't much leverage considering how the war is going. If he wants out and end the war, he probably needs to get closer to their position to get it done.

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

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

Here's a question for you ssu, wouldn't a normalisation of relations with Russia be better in the long term for the states close to Russia too? What are we trying to accomplish with fighting Russia untill the bitter end? Do we really want to keep playing this game until the end of time... hate breeds hate.

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

Problem is the autocrats have most of the power. A rules based order only holds if you have the power to enforce it... the sheriff left town.

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

I would agree that it's far from certain that the MAGA-movement will stay in power indefinitely, it can just as well swing back in the other direction. But there is damage that can't be undone, it has now become clear that no country should want to bet its security and future on a wildly oscillating 4 year election cycle... the gene is out of the bottle.

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

NATO probably gets dissolved, as maybe it should have been a while ago. Russia isn't the same superpower anymore that needs a special alliance to contain. A European security arrangement where the biggest country in Europe is excluded from and its concern aren't taken into account, will allways lead to more tension. Maybe we should try to actually talk to them and see where we can accomodate each others security concerns?

, I don't think Trump cares so much about peace, as he cares that he said he'd end the war in 24 hours if voted in.
Since that failed a month in, he needed someone to blame, anyone, and had one plan for that someone to be Zelenskyy.
No hint of admission of failure, certainly no apologizing to his voters, nothing, but instead blame the victim in the war, by any means possible that his voters might buy (just watch them amplifying it all over the place).
Trump and Vance displayed vulgar arrogance in front of everyone (some roots in Kremlin (and Netanyahu) lines). They more or less assaulted someone alone and surrounded on their turf; well, Rubio seemed to wish he was somewhere else. Circus. AP banned, Russian state media present.
It's been clear for some time that Trump's word is worthless, even though they all have to be considered carefully.
Zelenskyy is accountable to the Ukrainians and the Rada — not to Trump — and has other allies that don't ramble or turn so easily, and don't have an affinity for Putin.
Trump apparently chose to play Putin's game, which would make his voters extensions of the Kremlin. Well played, Putin.

They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia. — Trump

What an embarrassment.

Don't listen to what he says, but look at what he does.

Usually his words aren't meant to convey literal meaning, but rather to ellicit some effect.

Don't listen to what he says, but look at what he does. — ChatteringMonkey

It is possible to do both and more. Look at the effects at all levels.
It is not a case of 'either/or' as your previous suggestion:

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

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

***
@jorndoe is correct. Trump only cares about peace on his and Putin's terms. This is his power play. To be the ruling King. To break up Ukraine, Europe, human rights across the globe...and more.

It is about the turn to autocracy and tyranny. The power shift from democracy to dictatorship.

Usually his words aren't meant to convey literal meaning, but rather to ellicit some effect. — ChatteringMonkey

The words are divisive rhetoric. The words are those of a narcissistic bully who cares for nobody but himself. I don't want this thread to be all about him. Unfortunately, he is the main player, but I'd like to broaden it out to look at other aspects and perspectives. An overview of global rights:

The UN human rights chief has warned of a “fundamental shift” in the US and sounded the alarm over the growing power of “unelected tech oligarchs”, in a stinging rebuke of Washington weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency.

Volker Türk said there had been bipartisan support for human rights in the US for decades but said he was “now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally”.

Without referring to Trump by name, Türk, an Austrian lawyer who heads the UN’s rights body, criticised the Republican president’s measures to overturn longstanding equity and anti-discrimination policies, as well as repeated threats against the media and politicians.

“In a paradoxical mirror image, policies intended to protect people from discrimination are now labelled as discriminatory. Progress is being rolled back on gender equality,” Türk said in comments to the UN human rights council in Geneva.

“Disinformation, intimidation and threats, notably against journalists and public officials, risk undermining the work of independent media and the functioning of institutions,” he added. “Divisive rhetoric is being used to distort, deceive and polarise. This is generating fear and anxiety among many.”

Since returning to power, Trump has continued to attack the press. Last month, he barred the Associated Press news agency – on which local and international media have traditionally relied for US government reporting – from the White House.

His administration has launched a purge of anti-discrimination policies under the umbrella term of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and moved to slash rights for transgender people. At the same time, the administration has sent panic through communities with its widespread and muddled immigration crackdown.

Internationally, the US has moved to withdraw funding for international organisations that promote health and human rights, such as the World Health Organization, and imposed economic sanctions on the international criminal court, which is investigating war crimes in Gaza.

Washington’s traditional allies, including Canada, France and Germany, are feeling increasingly alarmed as Trump lashes out at democratic leaders while expressing a fondness for autocrats, including the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

In his speech on Monday, Türk presented a concerned overview of the global rights situation, saying the world was “going through a period of turbulence and unpredictability”.

“[What] we are experiencing goes to the very core of the international order – an order that has brought us an unprecedented level of global stability. We cannot allow the fundamental global consensus around international norms and institutions, built painstakingly over decades, to crumble before our eyes.”

He called out the growing influence wielded by “a handful of unelected tech oligarchs” who “have our data: they know where we live, what we do, our genes and our health conditions, our thoughts, our habits, our desires and our fears”.

Türk added: “They know how to manipulate us.”

[...]

Türk, whose comments were not limited to the situation in the US but could also apply to tech leaders in China and India, said that “any form of unregulated power can lead to oppression, subjugation, and even tyranny – the playbook of the autocrat”. — Guardian - Human Rights

So it's not that world has changed per se, it was allways clear to the outside world that what we were doing was not what we said we were doing... it just wasn't clear to us. — ChatteringMonkey

The world is indeed changing, dramatically. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Who is this 'outside world', who is 'we'?

It looks like he's making an alliance with Putin from our point of view because he's moved so much towards Russia's position, has similar authoritarian values etc etc... but I don't think that's actually what's going on. — ChatteringMonkey

It doesn't just look like there is a pact with Putin, it is obvious from Putin's positive reactions that there is a deal going on...

I think he really wants to make a peace deal,... — ChatteringMonkey

For what purpose?

Overall, the actions taken are not those of a peace-maker. A deal-maker and breaker, perhaps. But only for the benefit of himself, the oligarchs and authoritarians, not for the people. He couldn't care less.

Where does all this idle speculation get us?
Who are we trying to convince and why?
Even in our 'understandings' of a situation, we never know all the facts.
And perhaps, this is a good time for me to leave the conversation, again.

Thanks to all who contribute to an increased, improved understanding. As far as it is possible.

The world is indeed changing, dramatically. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Who is this 'outside world', who is 'we'? — Amity

The ouside world are the ones not caught in the mainstream western information bubble. 'We' are the ones in the bubble. Maybe an example can help :

In the western media: Russia has invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked act of aggression because Putin is an evil dictator.

Ouside of it: Russia has invaded Ukraine as a reaction to the US pushing it to far in trying to expand its sphere of influence.

It doesn't just look like there is a pact with Putin, it is obvious from Putin's positive reactions that there is a deal going on... — Amity

I was referring to a more formal alliance. I'm sure they make personal deals, but that doesn't mean they can formally commit their countries.

For what purpose?

Overall, the actions taken are not those of a peace-maker. A deal-maker and breaker, perhaps. But only for the benefit of himself, the oligarchs and authoritarians, not for the people. He couldn't care less. — Amity

Isn't the fact that we get peace more important that what the motivations are?

Who are we trying to convince and why? — Amity

I'm trying to convince fellow Europeans so Europe doesn't make what I think would be the biggest strategic blunder in recent memory. It isn't going that great.

, "Trump's peace" is "Putin's peace", as it turns out.

Putin would walk away scot-free with no concessions, no change except no further resistance, incidentally also free to continue their modus operandi against the rest of Ukraine (like proxy or similar, somewhat deniable, Russification campaigns). Almost like invisible/absent in any peace talks or deals, though a great victory in the eyes of his domestic peers; might otherwise have turned out bad for him at home.

Trump would walk away with rights to Ukrainian resources/minerals/metals (good for Musk, incidentally). Much like Putin would be free to drain resources/minerals/metals in Donbas (plus, free of pressure, redirect efforts). Trump would have, though belatedly, ended the war he said he'd end in a day if elected.

The Ukrainians would get American workers on the ground, concessions to the Kremlin, and US$s. No (other) security guarantees though? Evidently, the US + Russia + the UK + France (+ China) couldn't provide such guarantees before, which Putin has violated since 2014; NATO plausibly could. As an aside, what could they do if some "American workers" turned out to have, let's say, ulterior motives?

I wouldn't call the deal a work of art (pun intended), especially not for the Ukrainians, and it's about them. It's fairly easy to come up with hypothetical analogies for your (whoever's) home soil, try it.

Well, maybe it's time for democracy to concede or give way to aggressive-regressive authoritarianism?

Well, maybe it's time for democracy to concede or give way to aggressive-regressive authoritarianism? — jorndoe

That's not what i'm getting at. I think one should pick their battles a bit more carefully. The war was going nowhere, and not likely to go anywhere without the US, at some point you have to deal with the reality on the ground.

, Anne Frank had "peace" :/ Freddie Knoller got peace ... Putin needs determined deterrence. Can be done without Trump, but not with defeatism and believing whatever comes out of the Kremlin without further ado. Do you think Zelenskyy should return home to the Ukrainians and the Rada with "Trump's peace"?

Do you think Zelenskyy should return home to the Ukrainians and the Rada with "Trump's peace"? — jorndoe

Do you think it would be better to send thousands of Ukranians more to the grave for nothing?

Do we have to think about consequences at all, or do we just have to rush in whatever the consequences because it's a just cause?

What, if anything, would convince you that it's a bad idea eventhough it's a just cause?

The Ukrainians will decide what the fighting is worth. They are the ones who do it.

What others may think of their fortunes will not replace that decision.

Yeah I don't agree with that, it's also about the stability of the entire region.

And if he decides it's a good idea to stay in the war, do we just support him no matter what, effectively delegating our foreign policy to him?

And if he decides it's a good idea to stay in the war, do we just support him no matter what, effectively delegating our foreign policy to him? — ChatteringMonkey

Who are your "we" ? I imagine the several sovereign - for the moment - nations of Europe will formulate their own foreign policy according to what they perceive as their own long-term interest and commitment to one another. If any one of those heads of state and his or her compatriots choose to fight for their homeland to the bitterest of ends, it will be up to the others whether they support that action.
I'm really fed up with references to "the war" as if the Ukrainians had any choice in the matter. This is not a two-sided conflict: they were attacked and have been defending themselves. The "stability of the region" was not endangered by Zelensky or his people and they are not responsible for restoring it by letting themselves be subsumed in Putin's empire.
Shall we ask the Palestinians to seek refugee status in Greenland in order to maintain Nyetenyahu's 'stability'? Who's next to be required to give up their freedom and their home for stability in some region?

I suppose, by the defeatist argument, South Korea has already lost to North Korea?
"Surrender now or nukes will level Seoul and other places."
(Kim Jong Un to generals: "Gather 1,000 children in Pyongyang and broadcast them playing.")

What concessions will Putin be asked to make?
So far, all the “peace talks” have been about what Ukraine must give up—territory, NATO aspirations, sovereignty. So what exactly is Putin offering?
Is he withdrawing his troops? Paying reparations? Acknowledging war crimes? Or is his big “compromise” just taking less of Ukraine than he originally wanted? — Talgat Azimov

If a guy steals your house and offers to return half of your living room, that’s not a “compromise”—that’s a hostage deal.
When one side just wants a “pause” to reload, that’s not diplomacy—that’s preparation for the next invasion.
A peace deal where only one side makes sacrifices isn’t peace—it’s surrender with better branding. — Talgat Azimov

I'm really fed up with references to "the war" as if the Ukrainians had any choice in the matter. This is not a two-sided conflict: they were attacked and have been defending themselves. The "stability of the region" was not endangered by Zelensky or his people and they are not responsible for restoring it by letting themselves be subsumed in Putin's empire. — Vera Mont

But it is a US-Russia proxy war. Regime change has been a standard practice of the CIA and policy especially of the democratic party for decades all over the world. Without the supplies and military assistance of the US and Europe Ukraine wouldn't have stood a chance... we can hardly be more involved, and yet here we are pretending like this is just a matter of Ukraine defending itself.

Of course nobody will hear this, because if you say something that doesn't conform to the Western mainstream narrative it must be Russian propaganda.

Shall we ask the Palestinians to seek refugee status in Greenland in order to maintain Nyetenyahu's 'stability'? Who's next to be required to give up their freedom and their home for stability in some region? — Vera Mont

Russia has 6000 nuclear bombs, but sure let's just brush away the stability of the region like it's a nothing burger.

Let's just spell it out as clear as possible so anyone who wants to see it can see.

Liberal democracy has been the ideological underpinning of the expansion of the US empire. It is uniquely suited for that because it's an offshoot of Christian morality that holds that morality is objective and universal. That means that any country not adhering to those values is objectively wrong, and can therefore justifiably be undermined and fought until they do adhere to those values. And that's essentially what the US has been doing the past 70 years, toppling regimes left and right, and invading countries because women can't wear miniskirts.... usually leaving a huge mess in their wake.

Thrasymachus was allways right folks, justice is the interest of the stronger... the liberal democratic world order was there to serve our interests.

Alas it's hard to convince true believers.

Deus vult!

Russia has 6000 nuclear bombs, but sure let's just brush away the stability of the region like it's a nothing burger. — ChatteringMonkey

The region has no stability. A Putin-Trump divvy will not provide one. What the hell are you on about?

t is uniquely suited for that because it's an offshoot of Christian morality that holds that morality is objective and universal — ChatteringMonkey

Where do you get the idea that a uniquely defining factor of Christian morality is that it's objective and universal?

I'd say the opposite is true. Christian morality, especially the protestant version, is uniquely personal. All morality has some claim to objective and universal application. Indeed that's a common definition for morality. What's unusual about Christianity specifically is that it has no fully fixed moral code and that the scripture offers a lot of room to insert personal beliefs. Notably Christianity has no religious law, unlike it's sister religions.

Thrasymachus was allways right folks, justice is the interest of the stronger... the liberal democratic world order was there to serve our interests. — ChatteringMonkey

Obviously it's true that the "liberal democratic" world order was to a significant extent shaped to serve US and also European interests, particularly economic ones. I don't think anyone supposed that past US administrations were somehow solely motivated by altruism.

It does not follow though that it did not also foster actual liberal values and actual democracy.

Where do you get the idea that a uniquely defining factor of Christian morality is that it's objective and universal? — Echarmion

It's a offshoot of judaïsm, To belong to Judaïsm you had to be ethnically a jew, the rest were gentiles. Christiany broke that open and made it universal by allowing everybody in the religion and making it appicable to everybody. Even pagans go to hell if they disobey a God they don't believe in.

The other unusual feature, which they inhererited from Judaïsm, is monotheism, there is only one God (one set of values and morals). Pagan religion in the Roman empire used to allow a whole panteon of Gods, where every city has some different particular God or Gods they were allowed to worship. They didn't shun or exclude other religions, but incorporated them into their pantheon.

Christianity also was instrumental in colonising the world. Judaïsm for example never had this same religious conversion fervour.

It does not follow though that it did not also foster actual liberal values and actual democracy. — Echarmion

No that's right, but then that is only a good thing if you already assume that liberal values and democracy are the values one should aspire to, which other societies clearly do not.

Russia has 6000 nuclear bombs, but sure let's just brush away the stability of the region like it's a nothing burger.
— ChatteringMonkey

The region has no stability. A Putin-Trump divvy will not provide one. What the hell are you on about? — Vera Mont

You know you really have to look at this in a bit of a wider context. We are part of the reason why the situation has evovled the way it has because we excluded Russia from participating in the western world after the second world war. We stabbed them in the back after they had lost millions of people fighting on our side... because communism became the new big bad. And after the Iron curtain fell there was another chance to normalise realtions with them, instead we just pushed NATO (an alliance specially designed to keep them in check) up to their border, breaking our word that we wouldn't do it.

Maybe it's time to rectify that mistake? You have to create the conditions for stability, if we never try we will never have it.

I'd say the opposite is true. Christian morality, especially the protestant version, is uniquely personal. All morality has some claim to objective and universal application. Indeed that's a common definition for morality — Echarmion

That's how we typically view morality because of the Christian origins of our culture, And chirstianity took its inspiration from platonism that was in vogue in the Greek Hellenistic world at the time of its devellopment.

Instead of morality being tied to a certain group living in a certain place, it became abstract and universal, applicable to everybody (Plato's ideal forms).

The history of the West, a footnote to Plato.

Have you followed the discussion JD Vance had with Rory Stewart about Christianity On X?
·

Jan 30
JD VANCE: There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world

Rory Stewart
@RoryStewartUK
A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 - less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love… — X

I don't know how deliberate all of this is, but he's essentially trying to remove the platonism, the universality from Christianity.

But Chattering Monkey, what dost thou sayest, that up is now down and left now right? How can that be?

Brethren, stop looking down at thou tracks in the sand, and lift up thy heads. Hast thou not seen that the night sky has shifted, around a new axis the world will churn.

I tell you brethren, out of the old world we were born, towards the new world we must turn. Verily I ask you, stop chasing the dimming light, the other way is the rising sun.


Or maybe I read to much Nietzsche.

Maybe it's time to rectify that mistake? You have to create the conditions for stability, if we never try we will never have it. — ChatteringMonkey

OK, then we won't.
I do, however, resist the urge to correct you King James English.

We probably won't yeah... it's a damn shame.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

Don't even try to beat them; join up and help them eat Europe. Then Greenland, then North America, then central America, then....

I don't think eating Europe is on the to-do list right now.