Hope you're right.

No that's not exactly what I'm thinking. To me it seem wildly unstable right now, because they are so disruptive you would expect a backlash eventually. In a more hopefull scenario they are just a transition, a slegdehammer that creates space for something new. And I do think there needs to be something new, not just reform of the same.... because the direction we were going was never going to work, it was the direction to the last man.

I think Vance wants to rally 'round the family. Musk wants to colonize Mars. Trump wants to avoid further prosecution while changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico. We'll see where it all lands.

They think AGI will land in Trumps term, another wildcard.

They think AGI will land in Trumps term, another wildcard. — ChatteringMonkey

The plot thickens.

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 agree that the U.S. over reacted to the communist threat following WW2. But this wasn’t the root of the problem, it was a symptom. The root lies in Communism itself, it consists of a hidden hierarchy. Which is authoritarian by nature, because it marks its own homework and promotes people from within its own ranks. There is no accountability to the nation, or the people, just a mask, a facade of accountability, or democracy. This lie requires a secret police etc etc, KGB, Stazi, Gestapo.

The problem develops when this mentality becomes projected across borders into other countries.

Putin did spend a lot of time being courted by and working with European countries at the beginning of his reign and people thought it was a positive move towards normalisation, bringing Russia in from the cold. He even flirted with joining NATO. We were all getting along swimmingly for a while, but then weird things started happening and recriminations quickly developed into resentment and distrust.

It struck me when there was a diplomatic incident when Russians accused Britain of spying by hiding a camera in a stone, in 2006. Things went rapidly downhill from there. I’m not a Kremlinologist, but I expect Putin’s imperial ambitions were already developed by this point and he was already planning how to restore the USSR in its entirety. A plan which has been remorselessly carried out over the last 2 decades. The problem being that the entire continent’s of Asia and Europe were now subject the hidden ambition in one man’s head. A man who was enslaving his population and preparing to change the face of those continents to his will.

What can a bunch of peaceful democratic countries who find themselves in the scope of such ambitions do about it?

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but I do think one should add to that, that on the other side the plan of the US was allways a unipolar world, total dominace.. and so they tried installing favorable regimes all over the place close to Russia, in Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine.

So was Russia imperialist, or was it reacting to the US being imperialist? Probably both, but one has to note that Russia was not the one meddling in other countries affairs on the other side of the globe.

From what I gathered from sources that seem reliable to me - and boy is it hard to find information that isn't extremely biased on one or the other side at the moment - we do seem to have managed the relation with Russia very badly. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway, because Putin is indeed a ruthless dictator, but you don't know if you don't really try.

And that is the logic I want to counter a bit here. If we have already decided that Putin is the devil incarnate that will break any agreement we sign with him anyway, then there is no reason to try diplomacy or negotiations, and if we don't try that you can never have peace... the only option left is to fight until one party is destroyed, or both in case of use of nuclear weapons.

At some point we will have to try to de-escalate. And that's why Trump pushing for peace isn't the worst thing IMO, whatever else one may think of the man, it at least creates some space for something other than an ever escalating cycle of destruction and violence.

Yes, I agree, apart from the bit where we have managed our relations with Russia badly. But I return to my initial point that the root of the problem is with Communism and that the U.S. and nato actions are a symptom of that. The Cold War was a time when both U.S. and USSR meddled around the world with proxy wars etc. And as I say some of it might have been an overreaction, or heavy handed. But I don’t see how not doing that, or being only friendly to Russia would have avoided what happened in Putin’s head. Because the root cause is still in place and Russia will continue to spill out beyond her borders.
Going back to what I was saying about Europe. European countries did extend the arm of cooperation and friendship, including becoming involved economically and in terms of shared resources for a period of over 30yrs following the fall of USSR. But it turns out that economic involvement was exploited to fund the war chests for Putin’s wars with and infiltration of former soviet states. While developing the means to conduct a cyber war against the West.
On the other side of the argument is the idea that NATO expanded eastwards. Which brings us to the argument of whether peoples should be able to choose their own futures. All the countries that joined NATO following the fall of USSR asked freely to join, for purposes of defence. Because they as small states would be vulnerable to defeat by a strong Russia. Why would European countries deny them this opportunity to secure their safety and future as free countries?

Because the world ultimately revolves around geopolical power and spheres of influence? Should Canada freely have wanted to become a communist country and ally itself with Russia in the cold war, the US would have never allowed it. Why is that? It would seem that soevereignity is a bit of a pretence that we use when it suits us.

Liberal democracy isn't much better than communism on the imperialism scale. Both claim universality, because they are both offshoots of Christianity... it was all Jesus fault!

Canada might not be a good example, here as she may soon be annexed by an autocrat. She missed her chance to join USSR.

Anyway that moves away from the point I was making.

On the other side of the argument is the idea that NATO expanded eastwards. Which brings us to the argument of whether peoples should be able to choose their own futures. All the countries that joined NATO following the fall of USSR asked freely to join, for purposes of defence. Because they as small states would be vulnerable to defeat by a strong Russia. Why would European countries deny them this opportunity to secure their safety and future as free countries? — Punshhh

Because we said we wouldn't do it. And because Russia allways has signaled that they view eastward NATO expansion as a thread to their security. And to me that seems reasonably because NATO was an alliance against Russia afterall. That's how you build up good diplomatic relations, by taking into account each others concerns.

It’s a myth that “we” said we wouldn’t expand NATO to the east.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Also the idea that NATO is a threat to Russia, that there needs to be a buffer zone of neutral states between NATO and Russia are Kremlin talking points. A narrative used to mask Putin’s plans to invade and absorb all the previous states that formed part of USSR. An ambition thwarted if those states are members of NATO, a purely defensive alliance.

Thucydides Trap

Thucydides Trap has been used to talk about China.

Not a country like Russia, that has the economy a bit smaller than either Italy or Canada and has blown through it's Soviet era weaponry and only can sustain the war with a war economy.

We are the rising power.

In European versus Global news, the U.S. decision to cut off Intelligence support for Ukraine is answered by Macron announcing he will pick up the slack. Those are some large boots to fill.

At the same time the Trump Movement seems hell bent on shrinking the size of those boots:

Inside U.S. spy agencies, workers fear a cataclysmic Trump cull

The Pentagon this week is expected to begin firing up to 5,400 probationary employees, as it culls its ranks. The CIA also has started to dismiss some probationary workers, a spokeswoman said. About 80 people have been let go, said one former officer, who like other current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals for speaking out or because they work in sensitive jobs.

“Work is next to impossible right now,” said the analyst, who is still waiting to learn his fate. “Morale is through the floor.” — WPost

Who? :yikes: The US??? :snicker:

The sole Superpower wasn't a "rising power" after WW2. It was the other Superpower and then after Soviet collapse it was the only Superpower.

And now the US is by it's own action deliberately destroying it's Superpower status. Something that never has happened in history, actually. Russia, China and Iran can truly laugh at this as Trump is doing the utmost destroy the position that the US has.

Or who are you meaning?

Or who are you meaning? — ssu

Russia?
Yes, Trump is hell-bent on destroying the US government, department by department, agency by agency. He doesn't give a flying fig about international relations or long-term stability: he wants revenge on his opponents, real and imagined, harm to everyone who has ever been 'disrespectful' to him and the last big money-grab before closing time.

Europe, the EU, after the fall of the Iron curtain.

Europe, the EU, after the fall of the Iron curtain. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I like to call it the confederacy that desperately wants to be an union. Member states aren't anything like the states in the United States or somewhere else. These are sovereign nations states with distinctive unique cultures, languages and history. They naturally have different objectives and agendas as they are situated politically and geographically in different situations. If the English could lure the Welsh and the Scots to all unify under being "British", there is no program of making a German, an Italian, a Greek and a Swede to be similarly "European" as being British.

The only way is... actually this way. Unlike Trump says that it was him who forced the Europeans to "pay up", it was Putin's attack on Ukraine that woke us up. And then the next thing was Trump hopping in bed with Putin.

So a Trump-Putin pact that is against Europe. Yeah, that's gets us to do something together.

Yes, Trump is hell-bent on destroying the US government, department by department, agency by agency. He doesn't give a flying fig about international relations or long-term stability: he wants revenge on his opponents, real and imagined, harm to everyone who has ever been 'disrespectful' to him and the last big money-grab before closing time. — Vera Mont

It is absolutely crazy, but it's understandable when people are so full of hubris that they think that their government is just a service that costs too much and could better done without. And these anarco-libertarians who seem to think they are the heroes in an Ayn Rand novel and their government is their enemy, go smashing everything is just creative destruction and the means to get cuts implemented because the actual legislative course wouldn't work... because liberal democracy and liberal democracies don't work.

Ignorance and hubris becomes a really potent intoxicating shot in foreign policy, where these idiots can really assume that similar smashing will get results, because the pinko-liberals in "gay Europe" won't do anything and hence the war in Ukraine can be stopped by Ukraine admitting to the terms from Kremlin, because Ukraine doesn't mean much to them. And everything is just a deal, a transaction. After all, JD Vance never has been to Ukraine and thinks Russia isn't a threat to Europe, but culture war issues are. So, that tells something about the ignorance and blindness to Europe, just his remarks about possible peacekeepers.

End result is that the US won't have allies, or at least allies that truly trust it. The US won't be looked as bringing stability and definitely not as being the leader of the West. Canadians have now understood this. They have understood that this isn't at all about American jobs and fair trade... which usually was usually the reason for trade wars. Trump really wants the US to have the total Northern hemisphere of the Continent (excluding Mexico) and Greenland on the side. The US is the bully and while Trump is in power, you have to be equally straightforward as diplomacy would be a sign of weakness.

Just listen to this Canadian politician. This is where the relationship has gone to thanks to Trump:


That is really what one can call a breakup in close ties between two nations. Likely Canadians start to think of Americans like the Mexicans do, as the "Gringos". Yes, times can change and Trump does go away at some time, but this is something that people won't forget, even if things would go back to normal. The trust is gone. And the MAGA-people can come back, even if the next administration would try to heal the relationship.

Hence this is the end of the American Superpower. From now on, the US is just a great power among others and bully and a threat to the neighborhood.

I'll write a plan for Europe tomorrow.

It is absolutely crazy, but it's understandable when people are so full of hubris that they think that their government is just a service that costs too much and could better done without. — ssu

They have better uses for the money: their own enrichment. There is more to the wrecking of government: Trump wants to be king, which he can't be until the constitution is well and truly scrapped. So do Vance and Musk.... I wonder which one will do him in. Either way, it won't be an improvement: he's evil, crazy and stupid; they're evil, crazy and smart.

And these anarco-libertarians who seem to think they are the heroes in an Ayn Rand novel and their government is their enemy,

I doubt any of these thugs have ever read a novel. Trump probably couldn't.

go smashing everything is just creative destruction and the means to get cuts implemented because the actual legislative course wouldn't work... because liberal democracy and liberal democracies don't work.

Not because it doesn't work - it worked fine until their forerunners corrupted it - but because it still limps along and might bring them down, unless it's destroyed very quickly.

Likely Canadians start to think of Americans like the Mexicans do, as the "Gringos". — ssu

We've been eyeing them askance since Bush II, but Obama was a welcome change. Now, we're back to 1811, waiting for the invasion. We need to make friends across both ponds and around the Gulf of whatever it's the gulf of, to trade and form alliances around the disunited states of America. Trudeau won't be here to do it, and I despair of a Polievre government, so..... we are either in some god's hands or royally f'd, maybe both.

Well, I like to call it the confederacy that desperately wants to be an union. Member states aren't anything like the states in the United States or somewhere else. These are sovereign nations states with distinctive unique cultures, languages and history. They naturally have different objectives and agendas as they are situated politically and geographically in different situations. If the English could lure the Welsh and the Scots to all unify under being "British", there is no program of making a German, an Italian, a Greek and a Swede to be similarly "European" as being British. — ssu

The point of Thucydides trap is that it's not about how we view ourselves, but about how the rival percieves us. Sparta felt threathened by rising power Athens building a defensive wall... we expanded the EU and NATO, a defensive alliance.

Everybody caught in information bubbles left or right. Look at how much confusion there is, there’s a source for every diverging fact. I think the actual facts of the matter are less important than the future we aspire to. If everybody just keeps looking back to figure out which way the future is going, then there’s nobody looking ahead to create the future we want.

The point of Thucydides trap is that it's not about how we view ourselves, but about how the rival percieves us. Sparta felt threathened by rising power Athens building a defensive wall... we expanded the EU and NATO, a defensive alliance. — ChatteringMonkey

When you whole society is basically a military, then all you see will be threats.

Still I would say that the example of a rising power is more China and the US, because China becoming an economic colossus caused the US to see it as a threat. Before it was Japan, which actually was an ally.

What you forget is that Russia isn't a normal country, it has imperial aspirations and will be because of them a real security threat to it's neighbors. In fact, an existential threat when you are next to Russia and have been part of the Soviet Union. Russia is not like UK that after losing the Empire after some brief colonial wars, then created a Commonwealth and is fine with losing it's imperial status and just holds on to the position of being an international banker. The British can laugh about losing their empire. Above all, the UK isn't calling Ireland and artificial country and demanding that all of the British Isles ought to be in the UK.

That's the goddam difference with Russia, what those with the "NATO-enlargement-made-Russia-to-do-it" obsession will not admit. Nope. ONLY thing is NATO enlargement and the US and actually Russia is hence the victim here.

To understand this one has to remember that for Putin the collapse of Russia was the greatest tragedy that had happened in world history. This isn't just some one off remark. Putin has repeated this:

"It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union," Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called "Russia. New History", the RIA state news agency reported.

"We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost," said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called "a major humanitarian tragedy".

Yes, Putin milks Russian fears of Europeans trying to invade Russia, because there was Napoleon and Hitler. Well, Napoleon or Hitler isn't running Europe. But that doesn't matter.

Threat of NATO gives a credible reason for the Russian reconquista of the former Empire and many in their anti-western self-criticism think that NATO enlargement is the only real reason. Yet Putin's Russia wouldn't have been a benign country that would have left the former Soviet states alone if there wouldn't have been a NATO. Only NATO has kept the tiny nations of NATO independent. Moldova is a prime example that for Russian imperialism, you don't need NATO. So without NATO, the Baltic States would already have been under the control of Putin for a long time.

I'm not claiming that it is our fault exclusively, I'm only claiming that it isn't Russia's fault exclusively.... it is the relation, the dynamic between to two, that got us to where we are. And it is that relation that you have to manage if you want to make some progress in a better direction.

I'm not claiming that it is our fault exclusively, I'm only claiming that it isn't Russia's fault exclusively... — ChatteringMonkey

I've always accepted that NATO enlargement has been one genuine reason. I've myself pointed out that in their military doctrine they stated NATO enlargement as their biggest threat. However

The fact is that NATO membership has to be accepted by all member states. Just look at how difficult it was for Sweden to get in to NATO. Several member states even now are against Ukraine being a partner. This is something extremely important to understand, just as that prior to 2014, there had been all the "reset" attempts even after the Russo-Georgian war.

Above all, the large military exercises on the Ukrainian border were enough for Germany to promise that Ukraine wouldn't be a NATO member. So if this would have been just about NATO membership, a show of force would have done it. But did Putin fine with this? Of course not! Because it wasn't just about NATO membership.

No, he went to demand NATO that Russia would have to have a veto on any new members. And btw. have to withdraw from the new member states. NATO couldn't go against it's own charter. And this shows that Putin didn't have in mind just stopping NATO enlargement. In fact, when Russia demanded this veto, that was the time when Finland understood that NATO membership couldn't anymore be just an option. Putin really wanted to take Ukraine back, because he assumed that Ukraine was as ripe for an easy picking as it had been in 2014 and the US and NATO wouldn't do much, as they had just given Afghanistan to the Taleban (with both Trump and Biden being culprits for the Afghan catastrophe).

it is the relation, the dynamic between to two, that got us to where we are. — ChatteringMonkey

Please, do not forget my country and Poland and Sweden and Lithuania and... the goddam 30 countries or so involved in this!

This isn't just the US and Russia. Or EU and Russia. The whole NATO enlargement isn't just an action done by the US. The US and the West didn't think much about NATO enlargement. It was the little new member applicants themselves. They were themselves the ones pushing the US here. You have to stop looking at this from the old Cold War lense of there being just two Superpowers. You won't get the real picture if you just brush off other states here as being the stooges of either the US or Russia. That's not how the game goes. For starters, Ukraine itself is here an actor.

Just look at the war in Afghanistan. There the US was totally obsessed with Al Qaeda and later the Taleban and didn't care a shit about Pakistan. Well, Pakistan did care a lot about Afghanistan and the Taleban. And they played both the US and the Taleban and finally got their victory with the US leaving the place. This happens to the US when it doesn't give a fuck about anybody else.

Thucydides

SSU has covered this.

The small Baltic states and Poland would by now have been invaded, subjected to brutal abuse and assimilated into Russia by force. Or had Putin puppet governments installed, if they had not joined NATO. This why those countries requested NATO membership.

Making comparisons with other countries doesn’t account for these circumstances. Again we have been gaslit with Russian propaganda for decades on these issues. Propaganda behind which naked imperialist ambitions were played out.