:up:

Trump threatens to cut funding for schools that permit ‘illegal protests’ and vows to arrest ‘agitators’
^{— Yelena Mandenberg, Steve Frank · Irish Star · Mar 4, 2025}

I’ve just heard an interview with general Sir Richard Sherriff (ex chief of the European arm of NATO). Who has his finger on the pulse. That the Russian army is in a bad way. — Punshhh

And that's why Trump is a gift from heaven to Putin. Even still, Russia can fight with an army that is treated like shit. And when the Ukrainians can basically just defend, they will be OK.

You should not convince me. You should convince Trump. — neomac

One cannot convince Trump. Trump is Trump and will be the disaster he will be. One should convince Americans how much harm Trump is doing to you.

We have now the dumbest trade war in history and the self-mutilation of America has started. At worst, it can really end up in a violent confrontation inside the US. If Trump now, when he has Congress, has to resort to disregard totally the separation of powers, go after judges and fire generals, think what it will be like if Democrats take the House and Senate? You think Trump will somehow come to his senses.

No, if you listen to him, he is living in his alternate reality with 100+ billion aid becoming 350 billion aid.

For Trump, abandonment could be a policy goal or a bargaining chip. — neomac

Look. Trump takes these issues quite personally. Notice his rant about "He and Putin" being thrown into fire with the Russiagate. How was Putin under fire? That is the real Trump. Soft-skinned and vindictive narcissist, who has a lot of hate and revenge to give after all those court cases. When Europeans try to be diplomatic, he sees weakness. But when they dare to talk about the Atlantic Alliance, the rules based order, Trump sees just Biden loving liberals who he resents. That's why Europe and Trump are on a collision course and there's no way out of this.

Really, this isn't about bargaining. Heck, the bullying with tariffs got him Canada and Mexico to put troops on their borders. Well, that worked! They were OK with this kind of Trumpist bargaining. But was Trump satisfied with that? Hell no! Now after one month, he had to have the tariffs. Did he give anything for the tariffs? No, just drop dead and move your factories to the US. Well, trade creates prosperity, but when you put it like that, the response will be like Trudeau and Claudia Sheinbaum have given. And they are popular, because it's very popular to be against a bullying foreigner, that is an asshole. Because that's what Trump looks like outside the US (and inside for some).

I think we make a real failure of thinking that somehow Trump has logic and reason behind his actions. He doesn't. People desperately wish there would be and want to see that there is. You see, in his first Administration he didn't actually get much done, which is actually great. Because if the economy is Ok, Americans are happy. They might be happy if the POTUS would be a genuine live Duck named Donald, as long as the economy is OK. As ducks live more than four years, not hassle with Donald Duck.

But now, Trump, the Master-of-the-Universe, will want to do a lot. And he surely is doing a lot.

It will be really, really worse even than now.

As I've said, first the most hated person in the US will be Elon Musk. Then afterwards, the most hated president will be Trump. But before that, there will be those who truly support him.

Trump has no respect of the Constitution or the separation of powers. At worst, it really can come to a violent overthrow of him.

At worst.

I struggling to see a difference between Trump and dictators. There seems to be no impediments to what he chooses to do.

If you think that “integrated European army” is the likely result of Trump’s pressure and an integrated European army is precondition for the European strategic emancipation on world stage, then paradoxically Europeans should welcome Trump’s pressure. However Europe is not just Finland and Sweden, nor is their alliance going to compromise Trump’s agenda. And nationalism can be used also to break European cohesion, as it has been so far. Besides what European may need is not just an integrated army, but also an integrated military-industrial complex, and also a nuclear arsenal. Maybe the latter is even quicker to achieve.

Yes, paradoxically I think many Europeans do welcome it. That Europe is taking care of her own security. While regretting the cause of it and the political implosion of the U.S.
Your argument about nationalism in Europe was good in our last conversation and I didn’t have much of a counter argument. But now my argument is strong, that this crisis will weaken this nationalism and increase unity and cohesion across Europe. Some proponents of this nationalism are in disarray. They don’t know what to make of Trumps pivot to a Putin fanboy. Many of them while flirting with Russian talking points don’t take seriously the idea of swapping sides, so to speak. Nigel Farage is in this position in the U.K. There are Reform(his party) supporters abandoning Reform over the unpleasant taste of being aligned with Putin. More broadly nationalist support is based primarily on the immigration issue. Not some kind of appeasement, or support for Putin.

All this Putin stuff seems to have come from Trump, who isn’t a nationalist. Although hiding behind the banner of nationalism, he is a demagogue, who aspires to authoritarian rule. Politics doesn’t figure, it’s raw power.

I struggling to see a difference between Trump and dictators. There seems to be no impediments to what he chooses to do.

I agree, although he hasn’t dismantled the democracy which elected him as yet. So his status is currently uncertain.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Look. Trump takes these issues quite personally. Notice his rant about "He and Putin" being thrown into fire with the Russiagate. How was Putin under fire? That is the real Trump. Soft-skinned and vindictive narcissist, who has a lot of hate and revenge to give after all those court cases. When Europeans try to be diplomatic, he sees weakness. But when they dare to talk about the Atlantic Alliance, the rules based order, Trump sees just Biden loving liberals who he resents. That's why Europe and Trump are on a collision course and there's no way out of this. — ssu

I think we make a real failure of thinking that somehow Trump has logic and reason behind his actions. He doesn't. People desperately wish there would be and want to see that there is. You see, in his first Administration he didn't actually get much done, which is actually great. — ssu

I deeply disagree with your approach. And I think this deep disagreement has manifested already in other occasions when we talked about Bush’s war on terror or Netanyahu's war on Hamas.
To me, leaders matter to the extent they are supported (actively or passively). Leaders matter to the extent they aggregate, represent, and guide collective interests coming from ordinary people, powerful economic and media lobbies, geopolitical experts, political entourage and advisors. And such interests are related to domestic and foreign challenges. So to make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me. One has to understand what are the perceived challenges from whoever supports Trump’s views, approach, official speeches in his background. That’s why I’m talking about logic: the exercise is to understand what could possible be the more widely shared premises (no matter how implausible they look to you) by collective interests which support Trump and then what most coherently can follow from such premises. This holds for Trump, for Putin, for Netanyahu, as any other political leader.
Besides Trump is the product of a political regime which is different from Putin’s. In the US political regime power is much more distributed and therefore constrained than in Russia. For sure Trump has amassed lots of power more than any of his recent predecessors, given the current US regime, and, given his mindset, he could very much exploit such favourable institutional conditions to push further for a regime change in the US in an authoritarian sense. The problem for the Europeans is that they have now not only Putin but also Trump as enemies.

But now my argument is strong, that this crisis will weaken this nationalism and increase unity and cohesion across Europe. Some proponents of this nationalism are in disarray. They don’t know what to make of Trumps pivot to a Putin fanboy. Many of them while flirting with Russian talking points don’t take seriously the idea of swapping sides, so to speak. Nigel Farage is in this position in the U.K. There are Reform(his party) supporters abandoning Reform over the unpleasant taste of being aligned with Putin. More broadly nationalist support is based primarily on the immigration issue. Not some kind of appeasement, or support for Putin.

All this Putin stuff seems to have come from Trump, who isn’t a nationalist. Although hiding behind the banner of nationalism, he is a demagogue, who aspires to authoritarian rule. Politics doesn’t figure, it’s raw power. — "Punshhh

I think it’s still too early to be optimistic about European reactions. No matter what they are going to decide to counter Russia or to revise the European collective approach to security, European leaders are still slowed down by an aging population which is sticking to mental habits and material privileges coming from the pre-Trump era, but which now do not look anymore adaptive. What needs to be changed is more radical than just re-arming. Europeans need an anthropological change that will take generations.
What’s worse is that the burden of democracy and multilateral agreements within a multipolar world infested by powerful authoritarian regimes, and which Trump looks pretty much determined to unload from the US’s shoulders, is still what European countries are suffering from. As long as they had the US on their side, European political leaders and people could easily ignore this problem, so much so that Europeans myopically abused of their comfort zone. But now European democracies (with their appeal to freedom of speech and universal human rights, and self-deprecating or anti-American rhetoric) do not only have to face the challenges coming from Russia and China, but also from the US.
Good luck with that.

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

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

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



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

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

Worth watching this interview:


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

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

Wtf, no Iceland? At least I heard Icelandic leader being quite on the side of Ukraine. — ssu

You may be right (https://www.icelandreview.com/news/icelands-foreign-minister-accuses-trump-of-humiliating-zelensky/). I don't know how they prepared that map. But, a part from Hungary and Slovakia, see Italy.

https://www.survation.com/is-zelenskyy-losing-public-support-examining-approval-trust-and-attitudes-toward-war-and-peace-in-ukraine/

Ouch, did I poke a bear, or something? — Punshhh

You do realize this is a debate forum, and considering you weren't even addressing the points impacted by your citation of my point, certainly you can appreciate that's annoying.

Look, I’m well aware of the points you raise. But I wasn’t addressing them, I was saying what the big story is, the big headline. That the post war settlement is coming to an end and a new settlement will be reached. — Punshhh

You cite my point and respond, if you aren't responding to my point then just say so.

Now if by "aware" you mean "agree" then it's even more confusing, but if you agree on the points about narratives (aka. propaganda) that were being discussed then that's good to know we agree on those points.

Nevertheless, I disagree with this adjacent point of what the "big story is".

First I would argue that the "big story" is Western elites cynically manipulating, aka. bribing, Ukrainian elites (with the complicity of said Ukrainian elites, who definitely want to be bribed), into fighting a war that could not be won, no one ever intended to win, and in which hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians died and it's not even over.

That would definitely be "the big story" in my book of stories related to this affair.

As for Europe rearming. I seriously doubt that is any story in terms of actually fighting the Russians.

I'd say they story there is that actual war in Europe and constantly claiming Russia will take all Eastern Europe, maybe Western Europe too (indeed even the US according to the "fight them over there so we don't need to fight them here" rhetoric), if not stopped in Ukraine, was not enough to really get war profiteering going.

European elites may not like Trump but they see the opportunity to get that war spending finally going by playing the Trump-Europe personality friction like a full string orchestra.

The U.S. and Russia have been sparring since the end of WW2. That was part of the Cold War narrative with occasional proxy wars, crises etc. It worked for a long period maybe 70 or 80yrs. That has now come to an end and the geopolitical tectonic plates are moving. — Punshhh

If by sparring (of which the whole point of that word is to indicate no one dies) you mean "fighting proxy wars" (in which many people die), then correct.

Maybe geopolitical "skirmishing" was the word you were looking for to denote fighting that is less intense than a full blown war in which the idea is to relate the size and role of a skirmish in an actual war to that of an actual proxy war in relation to a global conflict between superpowers.

An important thing to remember in that settlement was the caretaker role of the US in Europe. This is why European countries haven’t developed powerful armies. This is why they have become complacent , always relying on Uncle Sam to do the heavy lifting. This suited both part parties. This was not likely to change much until Trump came along and trashed NATO. This combined with Putin’s imperial ambitions have changed the landscape and a new equilibrium will have to be found. — Punshhh

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

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

This inevitably results in a lot of chaos and shouting. — Punshhh

... and also people dying. You seem to always leave that part out, such as the "Big story" is arms being purchased ... not all the dead Ukrainians.

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

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

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

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

war profiteering going. — boethius

Who are they? List 3 of them.

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

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

You are so committed to the propaganda that you are simply unable to conceive that it's even possible for their to be a hot war between Finland and Russia without that war being 100% Russia's fault in aiming to conquer Finland. Reality is more complex than what propaganda would lead you to believe.

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

The goal would be to create a tense military situation with little actual fighting. Russia has no interest in conquering Finland and Finland has no possibility to conquer Russia obviously.

At least to start, of course once fighting starts the nob can be slowly turned up while avoiding any unwanted escalation (such as any non-Finns dying in the proposed conflict).

So it would be this sort of war.

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

So the two notions are compatible that Russia does not "attack the EU" with the intention of conquering parts, much less all, or it, and there is nevertheless a war between Russia and Finland.

Just like the war in Ukraine radically increased tensions, including nuclear tensions (if you remember those days of increasing nuclear readiness), simply because Ukraine is a European country and US / NATO was backing Ukraine (at least in terms of social media virtry signalling), now that we've all been desensitized to the war in Ukraine and it is essentially normalized and no longer viewed as a source of nuclear tensions, if you wanted another "tension dose" you'd need to upgrade.

The logical upgrade available is some sort of war between Finland and Russia as Finland is in NATO. Now, to have such a war also not lead to a nuclear war it would need to be calibrated just like the war in Ukraine was calibrated to achieve such effect and things would need to be confusing so as not to result in US and Russia fighting.

For, it is assumed that any sort of fighting whatsoever between Russia and any element of NATO would immediately result in a full blown war, but this is just a thing "people say" and assert as if it's a law of nature when obviously it is not. There is a whole spectrum of both fighting and tensions between Russia and elements of NATO that can be explored without that leading to a full war, much less a war in which Russia seeks to conquer large parts, or even any part, of the EU.

Who are they? List 3 of them. — neomac

Hmmm, well Zelensky to start, then maybe throw in a bit of Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems.

But why stop at 3?

There's all sorts of profits to be gained from war, from human trafficking and black market arms dealing to just generously supplying LNG to a gas starved Europe.

Why aren't Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems not bribing Trump to push for the war in Ukraine, so they can sell more weapons?

Why aren't Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems not bribing Trump to push for the war in Ukraine, so they can sell more weapons? — neomac

First, in terms of general principle, the war profiteering contribution from the war in Ukraine, especially in terms of defence contractors, is in creating a far less stable world generally speaking in which it is "common sense" that more arms are needed by all parties. I.e. in stoking a new arms race.

Once adequately stoked, a fire no longer needs further kindling.

Second, even defence contractors don't want a nuclear war and even they would recognize the need for drip feed theory. Which, as the name connotes, is far from the maximalist approach to "whatever it takes" to supply arms to Ukraine.

Indeed, defence contractors don't even want too much war!!

Too much war, even in setting policy too ambitiously in arming Ukraine, would be bad for defence contractors as it would be necessary to transition to a war time economy, at least partially. What a war time economy means is a central planning and low wage, if not volunteer, basis to war production (think women building planes in WWII).

If EU states actually sat down and put themselves to the task of making enough arms as simple as shells for Ukraine they would immediately realize the only way to do it is through government mobilization of the work force (say the recently unemployed industrial work force of Europe due to cutting off Russian gas) and they would need to organize this production themselves. This wouldn't be a good thing from the perspective of the defence contractors. May even open pandoras box of the defence contractor world in that socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production. We rely on quasi volunteers (i.e. paid well below the market value of mercenaries to do the same thing, made possible through the magic of patriotism) as combat soldiers so it actually stands to reason that a quasi volunteer force to produce arms (or then at least standard munitions like shells) may in fact be equally common sense.

You wouldn't want to open pandoras box would you?

God man, heaven forbid.

In other words, even from the private producers of arms point of view it is merely a truism that more chaos and death is good for business. Aristotle man, moderation is the key. There is a sweet spot of chaos and death that maximizes profits, minimizes socialism and also manages the risk of destroying the defence contractors in a nuclear war along with much of the rest of the economy (this is the "does the stock market still work in your plan" sanity check for corporate executives in this sector of the economy).

By "manages the risk" what is meant is maximizing the net present value, which is basically expected gain but integrating over a longer term to take into account depreciation, discount rates and a bunch of other stuff we corporate executives like to phone up accountants about and be like "crunch the numbers on this! stat!".

1% chance of nuclear armageddon MULTIPLIED by a trillion dollars, equals 990 billion dollars (BILLION dollars man!) of net present value and is simply a win in business terms if both increasing or decreasing the risk of nuclear armageddon results in a lower net present value, and therefore would be violating fiduciary responsibility and lead to lawsuits from shareholders, which quite obviously would mean the end of the fucking world in corporate executive terms. QED in corporate speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And help Ukraine.

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

I agree with this, actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Openly siding with the Kremlin lies is useful for many.

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

You just described how you proved my point.

I guess thanks for that.

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

Soooo, I'm not following you here, you'll need to spell it out.

You just described how you proved my point.

I guess thanks for that. — boethius

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

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

It's not.

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

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

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

United States of Kakistan
6March25

from Paris, France
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974404

We Finns understand Ukraine’s struggle for freedom and independence. Ukraine’s cause is ours. (— Alexander Stubb · Feb 25, 2025 · 8m:30s)

I think @ssu deserves to be tagged or mentioned in your post. The PM of Finns is really worried about the current situation; so too @ssu, I guess. :smile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the way I see it:

The United States of America has never been a friend or an ally, but a partner. They wanted security and prosperity in Europe because this would benefit them. But they never had in mind anything else than defending themselves. The WWII was a good example of that. Until the Pearl Harbour attack, they didn't care about the war in Europe.

I always saw American foreign policy as a threat to Europe and my country, just because of the way they always tried to impose how we should behave in the world they created after WWII. I think they don't really understand Europe; probably, the average American can't point your country on the map; they think we are Mexico or Africa, and I guess they don't know about Slovakia's existence.

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

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

In the next decades, Europe has to think more about itself! We are older than them. We have more experience in struggling in war or hot zones.

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

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

No political or popular “movement” ok, but American analysts have been on these issues for a while now
(For example, see this article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1944-10-01/iceland-greenland-and-united-states, or here: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-importance-greenland-us-national-security, or here: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/23/china-diplomacy-panama-00062828).
Also the hawkish Bolton was among such analysts as much as part of Trump’s advisors in his first mandate:
https://www.thefp.com/p/john-bolton-trump-greenland-denmark-casino
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/03/bolton-builds-anti-china-campaign-at-the-u-n/
(Notice that even though Bolton seems now willing to question Trump, that’s more about Trump’s aggressive diplomacy than about his strategic motives).

Concerning the Neo-imperialist attitude this looks to me still functional to counter the perceived challenges posed by the current multi-polar environment infested by powerful authoritarian regimes, as I already said. Since I don’t know if you read it, I’ll repost it for the third time:

As I wrote a while back, the problem the West must face is that if rising anti-Western regimes do not evolve into more Western-style liberal democracies, the West may feel compelled to adopt the characteristics of these anti-Western, militarized authoritarian regimes in order to balance the asymmetry. Meanwhile, nationalist and religious motivations, as well as propaganda, are likely to take precedence over universal human rights motivations and/or propaganda. Imperial ambitions may also become more openly territorial, which AT BEST could lead to a form of agreed-upon, stable (?) spheres of influence. In this scenario, minority groups and non-hegemonic states will likely face oppression, exploitation, or will be used to serve the interests of the dominant powers one way or another through local populist bootlickers.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:

* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada.
* If Russia commits genocide or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, and China does the same against the Uyghurs, then Israel can act similarly in Palestine.
* If Russia and China can leverage economic pressure or political division to exploit Europe against the U.S., the U.S. can retaliate in the same way against Russia and China.
* If Russia and China reject green agreements, the U.S. can do the same.
* If China exploits Russia to counterbalance the U.S., the U.S. can attempt to exploit Russia against China.
* If Russia and China promote nationalism or religious extremism to advance their geopolitical agendas, the U.S. can follow the same path.
* If Russia and China adopt protectionist policies against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft), the U.S. can similarly oppose China’s technologies and Russia’s attempts to exploit them against the West the US.

And so on.
(Source: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479)

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

I really appreciated Timothy Snyder’s insights in this video (I’ve been always his fan).
Surely Trump is playing a risky game. And one should keep in mind also the points he makes starting from min 12:43:
If you get to a situation where Ukrainians are in effect given the deal that American power and Russian power will overwhelm them unless they accept what is in fact a surrender, if you get to that solution, here are the precedents you're setting:
1. you're setting the precedent that National sovereignty and the legal World Order don't mean anything because Russia invaded Ukraine in a very straightforward violation of the most basic principles of international law.
2. the second precedent that you're setting is that the aggressor will come out ahead um and you'll be setting that precedent in dramatic fashion because at the moment American policy seems to be and I would love to be wrong about this but it seems to be to reward Russia with things that Russia's not capable of getting on the battlefield on its own
3. perhaps even more significant is that you're encouraging nuclear proliferation because if we get the outcome of the war where Ukraine is forced to surrender then every medium-sized country is going to draw the conclusion that they need to have nuclear weapons to prevent a Russian style scenario

My only objection is that he also dismisses too quickly the Trumps approach without considering the reasoning that makes it more compelling than it looks.