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. — Tzeentch

I find the presupposition that it is realistic to ween Russia from the Chinese teet a pipe dream.

Let's hear it! — Tzeentch

For starters, they can stop doing all the stupid shit I'm calling out as stupid.

I find the presupposition that it is realistic to ween Russia from the Chinese teet a pipe dream. — Benkei

People probably thought the same thing about splitting the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. But I do agree that under today's circumstances I don't find it likely.

Over the long-term, US strategy will be with virtual certainty to try and use Russia to balance both Europe and China. It's a question of when that option becomes feasible again.

This fixation with Russia seems a bit outdated. She really is a basket case, a pariah state and run by a tinpot dictator. She is going to become an irrelevance. It was only the money Putin was getting for oil and gas that gave them the ability to start this war. That income stream is largely gone now (apart from what she can trade with China) and what money is left will be poured into this crazy war in which the working age men of Russia are being sacrificed en masse for a vanity project of their tin pot dictator.

The real geopolitics is between the U.S., China and Europe. Which is now being won hands down by China, while the U.S. keeps repeated shooting herself in the foot and Europe is now stepping more onto the world stage. The pragmatism of Europe will balance well with the pragmatism of China and could potentially introduce some stability. Countries like the U.S. and India are too gung-ho at this stage which will push the EU and China closer together.

For starters, they can stop doing all the stupid shit I'm calling out as stupid.

For the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage she needs to work with China and Europe to reach stability and pragmatism and restore the global order that was being forged via the UN. This is not a good time due to pandemics and climate change to break the world order.

The letter from the Departent of Education (DOE) to Harvard (and probably similar letters to other universities).

https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf

In the clause "government and leadership reform" DOE requires a restructuring of governance to reduce the influence of individuals "more committed to activism than scholarship". Seems to me a perfectly acceptable position to be an activist and scholar so this is a blunt instrument to create consequences to exercising your first amendment rights. At a minimum it would have a chilling effect on free speech. Unconstitutional.

While the government can impose conditions on funding, exercising such power is not unlimited. The broad and intrusive nature of the demands in the letter to a private organisation probably exceed the scope of authority.

I don't think there's an obligation under regular law to report criminal behaviour but this letter requires Harvard to report "conduct violations" of foreign students to Homeland Security and the State Department. That's... not troubling at all. Especially considering what the current government's idea is of anti-semitism.

For the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage she needs to work with China and Europe to reach stability and pragmatism and restore the global order that was being forged via the UN. This is not a good time due to pandemics and climate change to break the world order. — Punshhh

Comments like these give me the heeby-jeebies with the implied assumptions underlying it. We do not need pragmatism, we need a revolution away from the current world order and that will be messy. I think the instinct of all the right wing nutjobs is correct and that the times were already destablising and they are accelerating it in the hopes of coming out on top. The alternative, more democratic, more equitable world order cannot be ushered in with China at the helm or in cooperation with them; only Europe can currently hope to offer it together with young democracies.

From a geographical perspective it is, for instance, ridiculous China has more influence in Africa than the EU. Not that I want us to influence Africa but we certainly should partner with them and create very close ties with fundamentally democratic societies. We need to come together across ideological lines thereby reducing Chinese influence with Mauritius, Cape Verde, Botswana, South Africa, Fhana, Seychelles and Namibia and offer them trading terms that would be enviable for other countries to want to start political reforms.

Tariffs and import duties should be ideologically driven. We should be telling autocratic countries what to do, we should let democratic countries find their way on their own but with the clear support of a peer with like-minded political outlook on geopolitical stability and what the world ought to be like.

Finally, the current world order does nothing to stop pandemics or climate change or indeed to prioritise human beings over "the economy". It's historic track record has been terrible.

I don’t disagree with what you suggest. Rather I’m thinking of how to arrest the drift towards autocracy, isolationism, fascism, war mongering. Failed states, the breaking of international agreements, conventions etc. Things can easily spiral out of control here.

I’m suggesting moves towards a stabilisation of the situation. global cooperation over pandemic response and climate change are just about holding together at the moment. This could easily reach the point where these things break down and they need to be stabilised, strengthened and restored, to enable our civilisation to ride the storm and fend off the next collapse, or fracturing of civilisation.

↪Tzeentch
This fixation with Russia seems a bit outdated. She really is a basket case, a pariah state and run by a tinpot dictator. She is going to become an irrelevance. It was only the money Putin was getting for oil and gas that gave them the ability to start this war. That income stream is largely gone now (apart from what she can trade with China) and what money is left will be poured into this crazy war in which the working age men of Russia are being sacrificed en masse for a vanity project of their tin pot dictator.

The real geopolitics is between the U.S., China and Europe. Which is now being won hands down by China, while the U.S. keeps repeated shooting herself in the foot and Europe is now stepping more onto the world stage. The pragmatism of Europe will balance well with the pragmatism of China and could potentially introduce some stability. Countries like the U.S. and India are too gung-ho at this stage which will push the EU and China closer together. — Punshhh

This is a bit short-sighted.

Geopolitics is all about the long-term, and thus about potential. Looking at the world as it is right now and assuming it will always be that way is not geopolitics.

Europe has the population and GDP to rival the US and China, but right now it is not even a great power, mainly due to their own ineptitude and voluntary vassalage to the United States. The post-Cold War European structure is so categorically defunct that it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all.

War in Europe seems an impossibility today, but if European nations fail to unite it's a virtual guarantee over the long run. The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured.

Russia on the other hand is a great power, albeit the smallest of the three by quite a distance. Russia is the largest country on earth, rich in natural resources and is located on one of the most geopolitically important stretches of land on the planet:

(Mackinder, Heartland Theory)


Russia is, and will be for the foreseeable future, in prime position to connect and/or unite (parts of) the 'World Island', which is the most important geographical area on the planet due to the concentration of population and natural resources.

America's principal strategy to maintain primacy has been to keep the World Island divided.


Obviously, Russia took a big hit from the Cold War, but despite its post-Cold War weakness, it managed to stay relevant because it retained its geopolitical knowhow. It plays a weak hand, but it plays it well.

Europe came out of the Cold War strong, but threw any and all geopolitical knowhow out of the window and made itself completely irrelevant in geopolitical terms. The European Union is a joke internationally, and while nations like France, Great Britain and Germany maintained some composure, none of them seem to realize that on their own they're completely irrelevant as well.

Because Europe lacks the geopolitical insight and political structure to fight for its own interests, the only question is who gets to exploit it. Currently, that is still the United States.


All of this is to say, the China-Russia alliance is by far the most important geopolitical development of the post-Cold War geopolitical structure.

Without Russia on its side, China has no guarantee it will maintain access to foreign markets in the case of a conflict with the United States, which will undoubtedly involve a general naval blockade.

Iran and Central-Asia are important for the same reason, and Pakistan and Bangladesh are critical links in connecting China and India overland. It is no coincidence that the United States has been deeply involved in this region since the end of World War 2.

To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. — Tzeentch

The reason why people are discounting it is because they aren't short sighted. In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China.

The U.S. is a laughing stock. — Punshhh

That's not a problem for Americans. Most Americans have no idea how the US appears to other countries, and don't care. They're just sort of oblivious.

In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? — Mr Bee

It could very well be.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.

As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island.

The days of a US-led global order are simply behind us, and even the hawkish US foreign policy elite will have to contend with that reality. Therefore radical shifts in US foreign policy are to be expected.

Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China. — Mr Bee

Not now, but if Trump achieves normalization with Russia and we are 10 years down the line, who is to say?

Russia and China used to have very serious differences which disallowed them from forming a unified bloc against the West during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the Russians put a lot of effort in aligning themselves to the West, clearly preferring the West over China.

So again, it's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Not to mention, the international system is very unpredictable at the moment, and it's impossible to tell how countries' relations will develop if another great crisis hits; a conflict in the Pacific, for example.

Perhaps good ties with Russia won't split the alliance, but it might keep the Russians from taking China's side militarily.

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. — Tzeentch

I would disagree here.

The window where Russia would have truly aligned itself to the West has long been shut. I think that time ended during the Kosovo war. The rift happened already in the Yeltsin years. And it was was totally evident with the Russo-Georgian war in 2008. I've always said that for Russia align to the West, we would have needed truly larger than life leaders both in Washington and in Moscow. When the leader of the FSB and his KGB friends got into power, the window was totally shut. But there was in the 1990's a firm belief that this could happen. I remember a German military attache saying that it might be a possibility that Russia would join NATO. I myself and other Finns (then Finland non-aligned) were dumbfounded by the remark.

The West has simply fooled itself to think that Russia would align itself with the West and wouldn't see the West as an adversary, thus all the "reboots" of the US-Russo relations done by Bush and Obama (and of course, by Trump). This has been a disastrous mistake, just like when the West thought that China (and the Chinese Communist Party) would somehow change.

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. — Tzeentch

This is Trumpian or Russophile daydreaming, as if the relations between Europe and Russia would normalize. Russia is an existential threat for too many European countries. If Putin is ousted and Russia finally has it's revolution and the Russian's discard the disastrous attempts to retake their Empire, then those relations could improve. Even if that would happen, who knows, still likely many would be wary about a Pro-Western Russia. There would be the threat of a Putinist takeover.

And this is actually the real damage that is now happening to US - Western relations: even if the Trump administration sooner or later ends, there's still this feeling that Americans can choose a nativist-isolationist leader again, who is as hostile to the West as Trump is now.

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. — Tzeentch

Those countries that have now sent troops and "volunteers" to fight alongside Russian troops in Ukraine show very clearly which are the countries that are the true allies of Russia.

That alliance is the Anti-American alliance, now clearly formed and visible. It's just the hallucinations of the crazy people to think that somehow now Russia would want closer ties with the US. What it only wants is to drive a wedge between the US and it's allies, and Trump here is the best thing ever that has happened to Putin.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. — Tzeentch

No, this attempt is another form of self-mutilation, shoot oneself in the foot, just as is the crazy idea of declaring sky high tariffs against the whole World and then think it would create prosperity as domestic manufacturing would increase. Just look how long it took for Trump to blink and postpone the tariffs for 90 days. This is similar nonsense, that only a moron can 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. — Tzeentch

It's likely the reality, with the execption of India, which has and will go it's own way. Just remember that China has as an close ally Pakistan, not India. And China and India have tensions along there border. Yet in the debate club called BRICS both China and India can happily coexist.

This is just assisted by Trump trying to destroy every alliance the US has with other countries... perhaps with the exception of the US-Israeli alliance.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.

As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island. — Tzeentch

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.
— Tzeentch

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise. — Mr Bee

Somehow the "madman Trump" option with the "US foreign policy elite" being limited to "Trump acolytes in his administration" seems to be a satisfying answer here.

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise. — Mr Bee

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it.

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it. — Tzeentch

Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? And the fact that the economical consequences will not be seen or felt until at least in the next quarter. How the market reacts is irrelevant since it's just operating on trying to predict the future. The real consequences takes some time.

Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? — Christoffer

We've already been here once before, hysteria and all. No idea why this time it would be fundamentally different.

The anti-Trump trumpeteers have a vested interest in spreading alarmism and framing every mouse fart as the end of days. That's the main thing we're seeing happen. What, if anything, corresponds to truth remains entirely to be seen.

That reminds me of Donald Trump’s map. You’re not Russian are you?

That’s 19th century nonsense. At the time it was formulated the greatest nation was Great Britain, an upstart from a little island in rim world.

Anyway, your repeated attempts to paint Russia as great are unconvincing. And your venom for Europe reminds me of Neomac.

If you had to put your sentiments about the present situation in a nutshell, what would you point to as your main concern? Is it:

1. US withdrawal from NATO and the UN
2. Economic instability from tariffs
3. A concern about the spread of far right policies, including increased authoritarianism

Or what? I don't think I've ever seen you angry before, and you seem to be. Why exactly?

To return to substantive posts, a nice summary of the folly of this absurd trade war by William Hague. Quoting the Chinese sage Sun Tzu, on how to win a war.
https://archive.ph/o0h9T

Why does Hague think Trump expected China to back down? Based on everything Trump has said, I would assume he expected them to do exactly what they did.

The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured. — Tzeentch

Russia is a complete disaster and should be completely restructured. :smile:

Russia's leaderships insistence on imperialism is the cause of the bleeding the country is now going through. How different would it have been if Russia would simply have admitted that the era of the Russian Empire, that it kept alive by the Soviet tyranny, is over. It should have taken a truly critical look not only at the Marxism-Leninism, but the Tzarist imperialism before that. Yet it never understood how to behave in a post-colonial world. It didn't create and uphold CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, like the British did with their Commonwealth. It didn't even opt for the French model. No, Putin who see the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest tragedy of the Century went on a mission reconquer the pieces of the Empire. And not even in the way of neo-colonialism, but 19th Century imperialism of annexing territories and deeming large countries like Ukraine being artificial constructs.

Just look what on the map is the heartland in it's center: Kazakhstan, Mongolia and former Dzungaria, now China and being the northern part of Xinjiang.



A more remote and desolate place you cannot find. This idea, stupid as it is, forgets the most important geopolitical reality that is simply based on physics: for millennia it has been possible to move far more stuff by water than over land. That's why a connection to the sea is so important, so crucial. That's why major cities and urban areas have a large and usually long river going through them. The Kazakhstan-Mongolia-Xinjiang is the total opposite of this... and hence this has been a quite backward area for human development, even if the Silk road did give us places like Samarkand. Unfortunately for Russia many of the largest rivers that actually are navigable flow to the Arctic Sea. Now if a river starting from Urals would stream to the Baltic Sea, or heck, to the Atlantic, World history and Russian history would be totally different.

In fact, the United States, shows just how much nice geography has fallen to the northern part of the Continent. The US has access to the two largest oceans that are it's moats and it's connections to the World. It has rivers like the Mississippi that venture deep inland and navigable (unlike the Congo, for example). Hence in the map "Periphery Islands" are not the periphery. It is the "heartland" in that Russophile map from Mackinder's Heartland Theory.

Mackinder came up with his theory in the start of the 1900's. He argued against British view on the importance of Sea routes and naval power as " traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland".

Well, even if there is now the attempts from China to create a new Silk Road, even today 120 years from Mackinder's ideas the physics still prevails and sea transport trumps land transport in efficiency.



So heartland, my ass.

Hopefully this wasn't considered flaming. :halo:

For the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage she needs to work with China and Europe to reach stability and pragmatism and restore the global order that was being forged via the UN. This is not a good time due to pandemics and climate change to break the world order. — Punshhh

Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" and geopolitics is about "potential" instead of well, grounded in fact. If it's not true in 3 years, we must wait 5, if it's not true then it must be 10, but maybe in 20. Not very convincing. To put it differently, if my dad had a vagina he would've been my mother.

If it is geopolitical strategy, you need to be able to formulate the strategy. If weening Russia from China's teet is the goal, you should be able to set out several policy initiatives that make sense to reach it. Give me that and I can start entertaining the notion.

The reason why people are discounting it is because they aren't short sighted. In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China. — Mr Bee

And this just puts succintly what is going on. Nothing the US has done in the past week suggests the existence of a grand geopolitical master plan.

I agree with that, yes. Stability and developing from there is preferable but we need to be prepared it will just become more unstable. For me it feels like we've not had a lot of stability since 2008.

Maybe once climate change sets in that area will become a center of civilization. The peripheral islands will be the Americana zone.

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it. — Tzeentch

The point is that nobody seems to have any idea what is happening, including apparently the president himself. How can there be some sort of secret elite plan going on?

I don't think I've ever seen you angry before, and you seem to be. Why exactly? — frank

Actually I'm pretty happy with all the chaos. It's great to see people getting what they voted for.

Actually I'm pretty happy — Mr Bee

:up:

Maybe once climate change sets in that area will become a center of civilization. — frank

Ah yes, the hope of the Northern Passage! And great uninhabited real estate, just once the Arctic Sea climate is similar to the Mediterranean, you can plant palm trees to give shade. :cool:

(Beautiful Northern Norway and Lofoten Islands with their pristine beaches!)

The peripheral islands will be the Americana zone. — frank

Until that happens, enjoy the decadence.

Until that happens, enjoy the decadence. — ssu

:razz: