What about the inverse situation, if one makes a correct prediction?

NOS is conflating prediction with the identification of risks, or a trajectory. So that the person identifying the risk can be accused of failing to predict correctly, when the “prediction” does not come true. Leaving the ground open for accusations of political bias, activism, intellectual weakness etc etc.

Such approaches are often accompanied by a bullish approach where the person (in NOS’s) position does what they are accusing their interlocutors of doing, but handwaves away any attempts to point it out.

Seems to be a theme on the right at the moment. Accusing their opponents of what they are doing themselves.

Surprise surprise.

On Friday, April 11, traders placed large, aggressive bets that Apple’s stock would jump within days.
They bought contracts that would only be profitable if the stock moved up fast.
Hours later, the White House quietly announced a major policy shift.

The memo spared smartphones, laptops, and semiconductors from sweeping new tariffs.
But it wasn’t reported until Saturday.
As of this writing, the market hasn’t reopened.
These trades are still open — and still underwater.

That’s what makes them so striking.
They weren’t responding to a price move.
They weren’t hedges against a broad selloff.
They were narrow, short-term bets — placed just before a major policy shift went public.

Apple isn’t the only company affected.
The exemption touches an entire supply chain — chips, displays, finished devices.
We don’t yet know whether these trades will be profitable.
The contracts likely expire on Friday, April 17.
But the outcome isn’t the point.

Teslas next I suppose.

Had to laugh;

*president is constipated*
markets boo, dow falls 30%
*president took some laxatives*
markets cheer, dow up 50%
*president hasn't left the bathroom in 48 hours*
markets confused, toilet stocks up 5000%
*president emerges, declares bathrooms are battlefields*
raytheon acquires big toilet for $150B

The funny thing about this joke is that it is true;

China-made laptop, tariff-free; US-made laptop (with components that MUST be imported), tariffed at 145%.

Domestically - removed the vote from lots of married women. Deporting critics of Israel. Removed the right to due process. Ignored a unanimous supreme court order.

Bold...

Newsom jumps into economic damage control
^{— Dustin Gardiner, Blake Jones · POLITICO · Apr 7, 2025}

Hmm...

Military contractors pitch unprecedented prison plan for detained immigrants
^{— Dasha Burns, Myah Ward · POLITICO · Apr 11, 2025}

Apart from the vague familiarity with...other things, wouldn't this run into legal troubles?

They're going to have a labor crisis in a few months and all the immigrant stuff should subside. For a while.

I have declared zero successes, to be sure, nor have I made any predictions of future events. That’s a fool’s game, yet it is absolutely pertinent to the lucrative anti-Trump racket. — NOS4A2

You have made, perhaps unintentionally, predictions of the future.

The racket goes like this: predict a future Trump calamity, like a depression or nuclear war or fascist takeover. When it never arrives, promote oneself and one’s own failed prophesies as part of the efforts that helped stop it. Rinse, repeat. — NOS4A2

You don't have to be the advocate here for Trump, and I think it just blinds you from noticing for example what I say, because you assume the juxtaposition of people being either supporters of Trump or the haters of Trump.

What I'm worried about is that I don't see any kind of way for the polarization that is happening in the US to end. And that's not just because of the Trump supporters, it takes two opposing camps for polarization to happen. I really don't see a way how these two camps would come closer to each other.

And that the two biggest economies stop trading with each other will cause a huge difficulties for the global economy. It doesn't make much sense. Now Trump can easily turn this back: he above all, can make a total 180 degree turn and we'll say it's the famous 4D chess.

So the idea that Elon Musk has purposed would be a great idea. I myself would think that a free trade area of USMCA + UK + EU would be a great idea. The way things are now looks like the possibility of a global recession is quite real, even if things can still change.

And I if I'm wrong, then great! That's wonderful news.

Hmm...?

China Deals a Blow to Donald Trump's F-47 Combat Jet Dream
^{— Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Apr 7, 2025}
US scrambles as China cuts off key minerals for fighter jets
^{— Boyko Nikolov · BulgarianMilitary · Apr 11, 2025}

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod. — Tzeentch

It's fine if you disagree, but you can disagree without all the phoney shit where you have to pretend there isn't an academic basis for the ideas I'm proposing, and without strawmans about cabals and what not. — Tzeentch

Again, the point I raised was what you said in the first paragraph above. You think the Blob is still in control. So they must be controlling Trump or they aren't in control. In fact, that Trump is a lightning rod, suggests his incompentence is even strategically used. A useful idiot if you will.

Both articles point towards a foreign policy elite that spans both sides of the aisle. A 'deep state', if you will. Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer, etc. - they'll all say the same thing.

Who or what exactly comprises this 'deep state' is a more murky topic, but not necessarily all that relevant. — Tzeentch

You called them "deep state", which yes I translated as "cabal", because they are not "deep state" but a result of structural circumstances. The fact you are looking for "who or what" comprises it, further underlines you are cherry picking from the articles as both articles explicitly point to structure. Porter points to habit. Friedman identifies group thinking, donor-driven incentives, political insulation and an operational mindset on how instead of why. All structural aspects and none of it supports the view of a "deep state".

You are making a translation of the article into something bordering conspiracy which I take issue with as unsupported in those very articles.

What Porter and Friedman are describing is more akin to an emerging property of structure, shared ideology and behaviour, then an elite, deep state or cabal, or whatever term you want to give to it. Even if the end result is named the "foreign policy elite", it's incorrect to understand it in other terms than structural. It's analoguous to try and figure out "who or what" is behind systemic injustice. It's the wrong interpretation.

Returning to the original point of your belief the Blob is still in control. While the Blob may constrain the execution of some of Trump's plans, they aren't in control, given the sheer idiocy of policy in the past months. In fact, I think statements of the Blob being "in control" are inherently confused, since it has no agency. It appears concerted when it is merely emergent from the establishment.

I suspect the only plan Trump has is grift on a scale we've never seen before. Create market swings that Trump causes and will benefit from. Everything else, his stance on foreign policy, trade etc. is how a conman misdirects attention from what's really going on. What the dismantling of democratic institutions has to do with it, I have no clue. But that too is clearly at odds with the Blob, since it undermines trust in the US and therefore its economic primacy.

I used the term "deep state" to convey a broad idea, which I had assumed you would get the gist of. It is used colloquially even by academics, though obviously it is not an academic term, which is why I put it in parentheses.

The articles outline my broader view of what comprises 'Washington', and how it functions. (After all, that's what you asked a source for!) E.g., the president's influence is limited, and long-term US foreign policy ('grand strategy') is largely determined by a political elite class that functions along completely different lines than the democratic process.

What Porter and Friedman are describing is more akin to an emerging property of structure, shared ideology and behaviour, then an elite, deep state or cabal, or whatever term you want to give to it. Even if the end result is named the "foreign policy elite", it's incorrect to understand it in other terms than structural. — Benkei

It's you who tries to warp that into talk of cabals, because probably the idea that states function along other lines than the democratic deeply conflicts with your worldview, and the way you cope is by writing me off as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

I've already given you the quotes in which both articles describe in detail what the elite class is comprised of, and it is clearly not strictly structural (though obviously, a considerable part is structural), by virtue of the simple fact that parts of the foreign policy elite have public panel discussions in which they openly discuss their ideas, the well-known power of lobbies, etc. - even single lobbies, for example AIPAC.

While the Blob may constrain the execution of some of Trump's plans, they aren't in control, given the sheer idiocy of policy in the past months. — Benkei

That much remains to be seen.

Only focusing on the short-term makes one miss the bigger picture, and if the various Trump threads attest to anything it's TPF's complete obsession with Trump's daily ramblings, or whatever Trump's political opponents vomit out at the same frequency.

In terms of geopolitics, a few months is insignificant. Even a single presidency is insignificant, as Trump 1 proves; back then people were exhibiting the same mass hysteria and nothing ended up happening.

But that too is clearly at odds with the Blob, since it undermines trust in the US and therefore its economic primacy. — Benkei

The US dumpstered its international credibility under Biden, due to its complicity in the Gaza genocide and its cynical dealings in Ukraine - both accumulations of decades of questionable US involvement. The only part of the world that continues to pretend the US maintains any credibility is the West itself, whose ties to the US are completely different in nature and not based on credibility at all.

As I have suggested before, Trump is being used, inadvertently or no, as a lightning rod to project all of America's problems on. When Trump is gone, "America is saved!" and the deeper causes for America's problems (which undoubtedly involve 'the Blob') will remain unexamined.

Moreover, unpopular but necessary actions, such as throwing Ukraine under the bus and re-establishing normal relations with Russia, can conveniently be blamed on 'madman Trump'.

I'll believe it's all the result of wanton incompetence when the American empire is definitively resting on the garbage heap of history.

For those who still fail to see what the true face of the United States looks like:




It has nothing to do with Trump.

With or without him, the United States is morally bankrupt, utterly and completely. It doesn't need supposed threats of Trumpian fascism to turn into a mass murder machine. It already is one - has been for decades.

It looks like Israel is the bogeyman here.
As for the blob, every state has a blob. The words state and blob could be interchangeable and still be describing the same thing.

It's you who tries to warp that into talk of cabals, because probably the idea that states function along other lines than the democratic deeply conflicts with your worldview, and the way you cope is by writing me off as a 'conspiracy theorist'. — Tzeentch

I'm quite clearly not. I'm explaining that the nexus for raising the term "cabal" stemmed from your use of "deep state", which I've argued against from the get-go. If we agree about it, then we can stop it, right?

I've already given you the quotes in which both articles describe in detail what the elite class is comprised of, and it is clearly not strictly structural (though obviously, a considerable part is structural), by virtue of the simple fact that parts of the foreign policy elite have public panel discussions in which they openly discuss their ideas, the well-known power of lobbies, etc. - even single lobbies, for example AIPAC. — Tzeentch

As I said, doing this, is cherry picking what the articles are about. They aren't about specific groups of people but structural aspects of decision making processes resulting in a myopic approach to foreign policy. Lobby activities are but a part of it.

That much remains to be seen. — Tzeentch

I've rather clearly set out how Trump's policies regarding the tariff war undermine US primacy. If the Blob is in favour of US primacy then it's not in control because it's allowing actions that grossly undermine that primacy. The idea that there's some sort of 4D-chess going on doesn't make economic facts dissappear.

Only focusing on the short-term makes one miss the bigger picture, and if the various Trump threads attest to anything it's TPF's complete obsession with Trump's daily ramblings, or whatever Trump's political opponents vomit out at the same frequency.

In terms of geopolitics, a few months is insignificant. Even a single presidency is insignificant, as Trump 1 proves; back then people were exhibiting the same mass hysteria and nothing ended up happening.

This tells me little though. We were talking about control by the Blob of Trump. I'm still taking issue with that position as there's no argument for it and it's not supported by those articles because we have a clear deviation of the doctrine of primacy. If your point is that this is all smoke and mirrors, you need to do more than raise the possibility or there's nothing to engage with.

How would it work? What is the underlying grand plan that they allow Trump to threaten to leave NATO (alienating allies), start trade wars (alienating allies) and throwing Ukraine under the bus (alienating allies)? At what point is this going to turn in favour of the US primacy doctrine? What possible mechanism will do this?

How would it work? What is the underlying grand plan that they allow Trump to threaten to leave NATO (alienating allies), start trade wars (alienating allies) and throwing Ukraine under the bus (alienating allies)? At what point is this going to turn in favour of the US primacy doctrine? — Benkei

The days of US primacy are obviously definitively over. The system has become multipolar and the US is having to shift its strategy accordingly.

The US empire is wildly overextended, leaving it no room to divert its resources towards China which is the only peer competitor in the system, and thus the most important.

In other words, the US is already in the process of cutting its losses to create a situation from which it can counteract China sustainably. It is weighing which interests to keep afloat, and which to cut off.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. That's why Trump is trying to cut a deal with Iran - Israel cannot win a war on its own, and the US is too weak to bail it out. etc.

My main point here being: this easily fits into the changing global security and power structure, and thus there is little indication that 'the Blob' has lost control.

Most of the hysteria focuses around the idea that 'real damage' is being done. That's the image the media likes to project. But in reality markets will recover and Trump's rhetoric means nothing over the long-term, as Trump 1 already showed.

I don't see how anything you just wrote answers my three main questions: threats to leaving NATO, starting trade wars and stop support from Ukraine. There also appears to be an inconsistency where the Blob is about US primacy and yet they are giving it up.

The days of US primacy are obviously definitively over, the system has become multipolar and the US is having to shift its strategy accordingly. — Tzeentch

It's over, therefore burn all your bridges? Even in a multipolar world a country is presumably stronger with allies than without.

The US empire is wildly overextended, leaving it no room to divert its resources towards China which is the only peer competitor in the system, and thus the most important.

In other words, the US is already in the process of cutting its losses to create a situation from which it can counteract China sustainably. It is weighing which interests to keep afloat, and which to cut off. — Tzeentch

Threatening to leave NATO certainly will increase EU spending on military equipment. We'll just not be spending it on US material. Starting trade wars immediately affects both economic performance of the US but also its ability to produce military equipment due to its reliance on rare earth metals. Ukraine support is and was a fraction of what the EU provides and they can certainly stop such economic aid altogether but it doesn't make sense to alienate allies while doing so or to stop intelligence sharing. I mean, if the US would just say, we think China is the bigger threat and the EU needs to resolve Ukraine that's a different story than trying to blackmail Ukraine in surrender and giving a way half of the country to Russia and calling it "peace".

Altogether, if it is intended to pivot to China and diminish the overextension, making everything wildly more expensive and difficult does not help.That's not cutting your losses, that's shooting yourself in the foot.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. That's why Trump is trying to cut a deal with Iran - Israel cannot win a war on its own, and the US is too weak to bail it out. etc. — Tzeentch

Where have you read this and when was it that the US had ties with Russia with the goal to counterbalance China? I'm not familiar with it and nothing turns up searching for it.

That the EU will not engage in a power struggle in the Pacific is most likely correct, assuming no NATO member is attacked. But that Russia is going to turn its back on China any time soon is, in my view, a pipe dream. Both countries are autocratic, both countries oppose US power and China is Russia's most important trading partners.

Meanwhile, even if you want to improve ties with Russia, it's not clear why that needs to be at the expensive of NATO or existing alliances. And certainly the tariff wars still don't make sense (if you want to target China, just do so).

My main point here being: this easily fits into the changing global security and power structure, and thus there is little indication that 'the Blob' has lost control. — Tzeentch

Well, no, I don't see it. Apparently you consider certain things self evident but there are different and much smarter ways to go about it then what has happened now, which suggests the Blob is not in control and since Trump isn't smart enough, he isn't in control either. It's a regular clusterfuck.

Meanwhile, the FT reports EU personnel on record stating "the translatlantic alliance is over". https://www.ft.com/content/20d0678a-41b2-468d-ac10-14ce1eae357b?shareType=nongift

Well, it's been fun while it lasted.

I don't see how anything you just wrote answers my three main questions: threats to leaving NATO, starting trade wars and stop support from Ukraine. — Benkei

Influence isn't free, and NATO and project Ukraine cost resources to maintain; resources the US can no longer spare.

What the "trade war" is about, it is too early to tell. It could be mainly about decoupling US and Chinese markets, to avoid having to take that pain when real conflicts start appearing. It may be about something else, like the US wanting to become less dependent on foreign markets altogether, foreseeing perhaps global turmoil.

There also appears to be an inconsistency where the Blob is about US primacy and yet they are giving it up. — Benkei

The articles are somewhat older, from a time where primacy may still have been considered a feasible outcome. Modern developments have put that illusion to rest. Primacy is still the endgoal, mind you, but the US has lost it and will need to reclaim it.

It's over, therefore burn all your bridges? — Benkei

I don't think the US is definitively burning bridges. Trump said some words - that's it.

But to the extent that they are, they're burning bridges which are no longer useful - cutting off those parts of the US empire that will not be instrumental going into the future.

Threatening to leave NATO certainly will increase EU spending on military equipment. We'll just not be spending it on US material. Starting trade wars immediately affects both economic performance of the US but also its ability to produce military equipment due to its reliance on rare earth metals. Ukraine support is and was a fraction of what the EU provides and they can certainly stop such economic aid altogether but it doesn't make sense to alienate allies while doing so or to stop intelligence sharing. I mean, if the US would just say, we think China is the bigger threat and the EU needs to resolve Ukraine that's a different story than trying to blackmail Ukraine in surrender and giving a way half of the country to Russia and calling it "peace". — Benkei

If the Americans have to give up Europe to get Russia back on their side (something which the Russians were very interested in prior to 2014), they will. They need Russia to counterbalance China.

That is one bridge the Americans may have definitively burned, though. I think that's what recent diplomatic efforts are meant to find out.

Where have you read this and when was it that the US had ties with Russia with the goal to counterbalance China? I'm not familiar with it and nothing turns up searching for it. — Benkei

Yes, what I meant to say was that they used China to counterbalance the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Right now it would be the other way around - using Russia to counterbalance China.

Meanwhile, even if you want to improve ties with Russia, it's not clear why that needs to be at the expensive of NATO or existing alliances. — Benkei

The Europeans are committed to Ukraine, it seems, and have been resisting an ugly peace from being signed in favor of extending the war. So the reason is quite is obvious.

If the Europeans voluntarily start kowtowing before Washington again, then surely there is no reason to cut them off. But if they get uppity...

Apparently you consider certain things self evident but there are different and much smarter ways to go about it then what has happened now, [...] — Benkei

Let's hear it!

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. — Tzeentch

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity.

And if the US would be serious about China, it would try to tighten the alliances it has in the Pacific, not start trade wars with it's allies. (Because yes, putting up 10% tariffs and threatening higher ones in 90 days is to start a trade war with others too.)

Why Trump wants to cut the alliances and alienate the friends of the US and then grovel in front of the Russians who view him as an useful idiot is beyond me. Russia knows clearly well how weak and capricious Trump is how easily the US can change it's policies after Trump. Yet it seems that many are eagerly enthusiastic about these developments when the US is clearly shooting itself in the foot.

Well, there's a discussion now in Germany about acquiring nuclear weapons. That isn't likely, but what is likely that the nuclear deterrence of Europe will be discussed a lot. France naturally has long time talked about strategic autonomy. Before it was a French pipe dream, now it's a serious alternative.

The constitutional crisis which has long been forecast, where MAGA defies the Supreme Court, has arrived. It is the case of the illegal deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which MAGA admits was 'an administrative error', but one which Trump is refusing to rectify. Trump has hosted the Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele at the White House. He is being paid big money to incarcerate prisoners in the draconian Salvadorean prison built to take gang members off the street.

Mr. Bukele, who has positioned himself as a key ally to Mr. Trump, in part by opening his country’s prisons to deportees, sat next to the president and a group of cabinet officials who struck a combative tone over the case, which has reached the Supreme Court.

“Of course I’m not going to do it,” Mr. Bukele said when reporters asked if he was willing to help return the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three who was deported last month. The Trump administration has acknowledged that his deportation was the result of an “administrative error.”

The message from the meeting was clear: Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Bukele had any intention of returning Mr. Abrego Garcia, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that he should come back to the United States. The case has come to symbolize Mr. Trump’s defiance of the courts and his willingness to deport people without due process. — NY Times

So this is the test case. Trump is basically challenging the Supreme Court's order: 'you gonna make me?!?'

So this is the test case. Trump is basically challenging the Supreme Court's order: 'you gonna make me?!?' — Wayfarer

Testing what? If Trump can follow normal practice of power under the constitution of the US, or if the guardrails of US democracy actually works?

If Trump doesn't comply, then marshals should drag his fat ass out of office to face the consequences.

There's so much BS going on that all the previous crimes and shenanigans of previous presidents seem rather innocent and unremarkable.

Why isn't the guardrails even stronger? There should be a non-tolerance against stuff like this. Immediate cancellation of presidential power. Any other nation with proper political structures would remove someone like Trump in an instance and declare immediate re-election.

I really don't understand what's so hard here. Is the US too corrupt, too stupid, or too incompetent? Or all at once? Maybe it's just too fundamentalist as a Christian nation, viewing the leader as a divine figure and untouchable. It's rather pathetic actually.

Testing what? If Trump can follow normal practice of power under the constitution of the US, or if the guardrails of US democracy actually works? — Christoffer

He's testing whether he can defy the Supreme Court and not be held to account. The Supreme Court are hardly going to issue an arrest warrant for POTUS.

Is the US too corrupt, too stupid, or too incompetent? — Christoffer

All three, going on appearances.

Here's a gift link WaPo OP from 13th April

He's testing whether he can defy the Supreme Court and not be held to account. — Wayfarer

No he isn't. The SCOTUS said "facilitate" the return. They left out "effectuate."

You guys keep crying wolf. When the wolf shows up, you'll have nothing to say to mark the occasion.

Here is an analysis yesterday of the state of play concerning Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. A major point is that the Department of Justice originally acknowledged that he had been arrested and deported due to administrative error. Stephen Miller has taken issue with that, and the Department of Justice has summarily fired its own lawyer who originally acknowledged this error in the first place (despite recent commendations and promotion.)

The justices endorsed Judge Xinis’s previous order that required the administration to “facilitate” the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But they stopped short of actually ordering his return, indicating that even federal courts may not have the authority to require the executive branch to do so.

And yet Mr. Miller, in his appearance on Fox News and in the Oval Office, portrayed the ruling as an unmitigated victory for the Trump administration.

He said, for instance, that the Supreme Court’s instructions that the White House had to “facilitate” getting Mr. Abrego Garcia out of custody meant that Trump officials could assume an entirely passive stance toward his release.

“If El Salvador voluntarily sends him back,” Mr. Miller said on Fox News, “we wouldn’t block him at the airport.”

But whether that position flies with Judge Xinis remains to be seen. She has scheduled a hearing to discuss what the government should do for Tuesday in Federal District Court in Maryland.

The Government is now arguing that Judge Xinis has no right to decide foreign policy issues - but there is no foreign policy issue at stake. At stake, are the human rights of an individual who has been wrongly imprisoned in a draconian jail outside US jurisdiction. The next hearing before Judge Xinis is Tuesday 15th April. This is part of an emerging pattern of defiance and deprecation of judges in matters pertaining to the illegal arrests and deportations.

Nice correction. Well done.

The other major Trump story of the day - there are always so many - is the conflict with Harvard University. Basically, Trump has written to Harvard, demanding that they agree to a set of conditions around DEI, student activities and 'combatting antisemitism' in order to maintain their funding. And Harvard has refused, on the perfectly reasonable grounds of academic freedom. So now MAGA has declared a freeze on $2 billion of funding. This gift link to the NY Times article contains both the letter from the Administration, and Harvard's reply.

On Monday afternoon, Harvard became the first university to refuse to comply with the administration’s requirements, setting up a showdown between the federal government and the nation’s wealthiest university. By the evening, federal officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to Harvard, along with a $60 million contract.

I sense this will be a major conflict, as, after all, Harvard is one of the, if not the, most important intellectual centre of American culture. Trump's attempt to throttle it an egregious violation of First Amendment principles. (Funny how 'free speech' only counts for those who express the right views, isn't it?)

At stake, are the human rights of an individual who has been wrongly imprisoned in a draconian jail outside US jurisdiction. — Wayfarer

At stake, are the human right of an individual who has been wrongly imprisoned in a draconian jail outside US jurisdiction... at the request of the Trump administration who his paying the Salvadoran government to keep him incarcerated.

Yeah I know. It makes it even worse. And Trump now says he's going he wants to send American citizens who have been convicted of crimes there, removing from them any possibility of appeal to the US justice systems.



This is the guy behind all these machinations. One of the world's most dangerous men at this point in time.

And Trump now says he's going to send American citizens who have been convicted of crimes there, removing from them any possibility of appeal to the US justice systems. — Wayfarer

No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to.

No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to. — frank

And what's gonna stop him?

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity. — ssu

I agree under current circumstances it seems far-fetched, but geopolitics is a game of the long-term, and it's strictly business.

Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap.

That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo.

Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided.

No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to.

Is that Godzilla in your bio pic?
Trump is like King Kong rattling his cage, looking for weakness. Remember in the movie, there’s a time when he rattles the cage and it opens and out he comes. The guard rails have been removed and you can see people running around, screaming.
What people like Wayfarer are doing is pointing out that he’s rattling his cage, vigorously. If there’s a chance that his cage door can be flung open, oughtn’t we prepare ourselves rather than ignore it and run around in circles, screaming, when it happens.
Also there is the issue of what damage he’s doing and reputations he’s trashing. The U.S. is a laughing stock.