Well, Russia has recently conquered back Kursk. It's a stalemate where Russia has already conquered the territory it wants for the most part, and is the one most likely to break the stalemate.

But yes semantics aside, the point is that Putin doesn't really need the war to stop. That is leverage we do not have.

Again this is my point. But the fact is that there's not much pressure if any, and some could make the argument that the US is putting pressure only on Ukraine, which it can pressure. The US doesn't want to pressure Russia, Putin isn't a bad guy (as Witkoff explained to us).

Threat's of new sanctions if the partial cease-fires aren't held. That's the pressure? Where's the part of putting real pressure on Russia? — ssu

There's not much pressure from the US now, that's right. From the point of view of Europe that is a fact we need to deal with. Maybe we could have tried to convince the US with a more coöperative and less antagonistic approach, but it would likely not have mattered much considering the ideological hate they seem to have for Europe.

So, on this point too, that is leverage we do not have.

It's the messaging you send. Deterrence is messaging. It's the whole point. When you falter already when there is no actual or only little pressure, who would think you would have this turn around when a push comes a shove, or a blow? Already you are caving in.

You see, something like a treaty alliance or defense of the sovereignty or territory of a nation isn't credible, if you start with "but in this issue we will cave in or that territory we won't defend". That will just break the credibility. That will hurt morale: if you don't stand up for this, what else won't you stand up for? And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team. — ssu

Here is where I disagree. Deterrence is not messaging on its own. It's messaging with the threat of actual military force to back it up. I think Putin has a reasonably good idea of what we are capable of without the US, and probably knows we would have a hard time pushing back Russia on our own. In poker they say, you can only bluff or represent a hand that you could reasonably have considering how you played up to that point... we haven't exactly shown a lot of strenght up to this point.

So what should we be doing then with very little leverage, and the probability of losing more of it with the US leaving?

To me it seems like we should use the little we have now with the US still in the war to get a peacedeal, even if it's a 'bad' one... it doesn't seem to get any better. And for that you need to coöperate with the US, if we are working towards the same goal of peace, maybe we can pressure Russia more, and maybe have a little influence still over the negotiations and the contents of the peacedeal.

But what are we doing instead, we stick to our initial demands of Russia leaving all of Ukraine eventough we have no leverage at all. Russia will never accept this and the US gets annoyed for not coöperating. The result is that we have no say in the whole proces, which will probably lead to a worse deal for Europe and Ukraine.

It seems to me we are horribly overplaying our hand. Bluffing a hand that you can't reasonably have, usually ends in ruin.

And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team. — ssu

On this I will say a couple of things.

Expect more to come. It's baked into their ideology because they see mainstream Europe and the Liberal democrats as part of the same disease destroying western civilization. The ideology will spread.

Don't take it to personally. Ideologies are usually a bunch of half-truths and oversimplefied answers to complex issues. There will allways be people parrotting around this stuff.

Do take it as a sign to question Europes position in the world. The world has changed, the worst thing we can do is to cling to a past that doesn't exist anymore.

We need new leaders that have received the memo.

The center of Europe
Dark clouds circling ever nearer
Dog pile world

War is the father of all things
The old world order was born out of world war two.
Its decline questions its values

Blinded by the light
Black is feared to be behind
The world is grey

Experience of becoming precedes cognition
Cognition produces being which flows into the idea of becoming
The illusion is capturing becoming in being

The logos of the Christian God is not the logos of Heraclitus
It is merely the mother of ten thousand things
Fire is the beginning of heaven and earth

Re-evaluation of values
Primacy of the word led the West astray
Under Dao it should be

Here is where I disagree. Deterrence is not messaging on its own. It's messaging with the threat of actual military force to back it up. I think Putin has a reasonably good idea of what we are capable of without the US, and probably knows we would have a hard time pushing back Russia on our own. In poker they say, you can only bluff or represent a hand that you could reasonably have considering how you played up to that point... we haven't exactly shown a lot of strenght up to this point. — ChatteringMonkey

If Putin is so reasonable, why did he attack Ukraine? Why did he think it would take only a few weeks? The fact is that he thought and what was briefed to him was that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight back, that it would be like Crimea all over again. Or Czechoslovakia in 1968 again.

We should show that strength, and appeasement isn't that.

There's not much pressure from the US now, that's right. From the point of view of Europe that is a fact we need to deal with. Maybe we could have tried to convince the US with a more coöperative and less antagonistic approach, but it would likely not have mattered much considering the ideological hate they seem to have for Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

This actually is the real problem, because Trump actually doesn't see any value whatsoever with NATO. He doesn't seem to understand that he is giving the ultimate prize to Russia and China by crippling US power himself. It's quite evident that Trump or his supporters don't realize how much prosperity the US gets from the dollar being the reserve currency, and it's role isn't because the US is so economically awesome.

The only "logical" reason I come to is that Trump truly sees things as personal matters and while business with Russians have been so important to him, why he had these ideas of building hotels in Russia. He also likes autocrats. Then he hates the democrats, the liberals whining about an rules based order, he truly sees all this as a great opening to improve ties with Russia. Just like Canada being the 51st state or the US annexing Greenland. Both of these ideas start to be fantasies of a delusional old man. Yet deals with Russia might be personally very lucrative for Trump, just as is dealing with the Saudis and Gulf State leaders. No EU leader will start talking about issues like this, because it would be their ass on line if they tried to bribe Trump.

Yet geopolitically it doesn't make sense. NATO without the US is still over 600 million people and surpass in every measure (except nuclear weapons) Russia. Furthermore Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

If Putin is so reasonable, why did he attack Ukraine? Why did he think it would take only a few weeks? The fact is that he thought and what was briefed to him was that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight back, that it would be like Crimea all over again. Or Czechoslovakia in 1968 again. — ssu

Remember at the time we already had really high energy prices coming out of Covid. I think Putin figured it was the perfect time, because he could really hurt Europe relying on Russian gas. He didn't think we would be willing to put that much on the line to support Ukraine. His gamble didn't pay off, but then there would probably never have come a better moment... I think it was pretty calculated.

This actually is the real problem, because Trump actually doesn't see any value whatsoever with NATO. He doesn't seem to understand that he is giving the ultimate prize to Russia and China by crippling US power himself. It's quite evident that Trump or his supporters don't realize how much prosperity the US gets from the dollar being the reserve currency, and it's role isn't because the US is so economically awesome.

The only "logical" reason I come to is that Trump truly sees things as personal matters and while business with Russians have been so important to him, why he had these ideas of building hotels in Russia. He also likes autocrats. Then he hates the democrats, the liberals whining about an rules based order, he truly sees all this as a great opening to improve ties with Russia. Just like Canada being the 51st state or the US annexing Greenland. Both of these ideas start to be fantasies of a delusional old man. Yet deals with Russia might be personally very lucrative for Trump, just as is dealing with the Saudis and Gulf State leaders. No EU leader will start talking about issues like this, because it would be their ass on line if they tried to bribe Trump. — ssu

I think you are giving Trump to much credit, the Greenland to Panama Canal idea of total security for the American continent has been floating around for a long time. And there are others in his administration that are a lot more ideologically driven than Trump himself, like JD Vance, or even Musk.

Yet geopolitically it doesn't make sense. NATO without the US is still over 600 million people and surpass in every measure (except nuclear weapons) Russia. Furthermore Russia isn't the Soviet Union. — ssu

I think it does make sense if you see the global liberal democratic order, NATO, as a problem in itself that needs to be dealt with... because it was more and more overextending the US budget while hollowing out the center of the country. If you want a less globalised world and reduced involvement of the US, Russia could be a more stable partner in a multi-polar world. The problem with Europe is that there is no Europe when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

I think it does make sense if you see the global liberal democratic order, NATO, as a problem in itself that needs to be dealt with... because it was more and more overextending the US budget while hollowing out the center of the country.

This line of reasoning is false, the overstretch argument. Especially when linking it to an economically hollowing out of the country.
Any overstretch that can be identified and the hollowing out of the centre, which can be seen, is not due to global security overreach. It is due to China and other Far Eastern economies undercutting U.S. production in all areas and the drive to outsource production from the West to the Far East, capitalised on by Western manufacturers. The same effect can clearly be seen in European countries. Those European countries that are freeloading off this same U.S. overstretch.

Yes I think you are right, economic globalisation was the cause of the hollowing out. But they see it as sort of a package deal maybe, for globalisation you need free trade, for that you need trade routes to be save, to protect those you need a global security order... If your aim is to rely less on globalisation, the security needs also change presumably.

His gamble didn't pay off, but then there would probably never have come a better moment... I think it was pretty calculated. — ChatteringMonkey

Yet the fact is that Putin is a gambler. He did gamble with the annexation of Crimea and that worked well. He gambled with Syria and lost. He gambled again with Ukraine with the invasion in 2022 and that didn't go so well. But if he can snatch victory (thanks to Trump), why wouldn't he gamble more?

I think you are giving Trump to much credit, the Greenland to Panama Canal idea of total security for the American continent has been floating around for a long time. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice the huge difference: Trump talks of annexation, of enlarging the territory of the US. That is totally different from the usual neo-imperialist playbook. It really is 19th Century imperialism. In neo-imperialism you make regime changes and focus on the trade and security agreements, not the territorial expansion of your own country. This is what makes this so strange and the war in Ukraine so different.

I think it does make sense if you see the global liberal democratic order, NATO, as a problem in itself that needs to be dealt with... — ChatteringMonkey

So now the US is the enemy?

How does that benefit the US?

If you want a less globalized world and reduced involvement of the US, Russia could be a more stable partner in a multi-polar world. — ChatteringMonkey

A more stable partner? Did you notice how stable it was when Prigozhin made his coup attempt? Did you notice that the prior leader Yeltsin had to fire with tanks his Parliament? A country where in the last 125 years one and only one leader of the country has normally retired from office without being deposed or killed or then died at old age while still in office. That you call a stable government?

And oh yes, we naturally want less globalized world, less prosperity, less wealth for everybody. Because trade is bad according to Trump. What a wonderful objective for the World.

Yet the fact is that Putin is a gambler. He did gamble with the annexation of Crimea and that worked well. He gambled with Syria and lost. He gambled again with Ukraine with the invasion in 2022 and that didn't go so well. But if he can snatch victory (thanks to Trump), why wouldn't he gamble more? — ssu

He wouldn't gamble more if he perceives it to be a bad bet. If we for instance build up our defences then the bet becomes worse...

So now the US is the enemy? — ssu

They are an ideological enemy, not a military enemy yet. That takes some time considering how much we are interwoven still.

How does that benefit the US? — ssu

I don't know what their plans are long term, but there are a few scenarios that could be good for them.

If they take Greenland and Canada, divide Europe together with Russia, then European countries probably don't pose much of a threat to them. And between the two of them they'd have a large swath of the earths resources which they can use to build up an even bigger economic, technological and military advantage.

A more stable partner? Did you notice how stable it was when Prigozhin made his coup attempt? Did you notice that the prior leader Yeltsin had to fire with tanks his Parliament? A country where in the last 125 years one and only one leader of the country has normally retired from office without being deposed or killed or then died at old age while still in office. That you call a stable government? — ssu

Ask China. They seem to be thinking of Russia as a stable partner. And I mean if you look around the world the bar is not that high, you can't be to picky.

And oh yes, we naturally want less globalized world, less prosperity, less wealth for everybody. Because trade is bad according to Trump. What a wonderful objective for the World. — ssu

Yup it's not about the world, but about America first.

Yup it's not about the world, but about America first. — ChatteringMonkey

That's the lie that people believe in. The truth is that you are better off with international trade than you are without it. In the end, Trump is just hurting Americans. But this is what Trump has been thinking all his life, that foreigners cheat the US. He will continue with this, now when there's nobody taking the executive orders from his desk that he then forgets.

(Trump's message in the 1980's about Japan)

Ask China. They seem to be thinking of Russia as a stable partner. — ChatteringMonkey

The two countries are neighbors, they have had good relations and Russia desperately needs now China. As you say, they cannot be too picky. And the likely outcome is that Russia will perhaps thank the US for giving Ukraine to it, and then continue with China.

If they take Greenland and Canada, divide Europe together with Russia, then European countries probably don't pose much of a threat to them. — ChatteringMonkey

That's not going to happen. What Trump will do is to alienate it's allies and wreck the American economy. And Russia will be very happy about it.

Now of course I can be wrong here and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Trump can fail even in wrecking the American economy and this can be an era of US mental breakdown, which then turns to normal again.

That's the lie that people believe in. The truth is that you are better off with international trade than you are without it. In the end, Trump is just hurting Americans. But this is what Trump has been thinking all his life, that foreigners cheat the US. He will continue with this, now when there's nobody taking the executive orders from his desk that he then forgets. — ssu

Depends on what you understand "better off" to be, and who exactly is better off. Globalisation was to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, and it implies a certain kind of world where capital and companies are floating over borders reducing the impact national goverments can have.

In the overall it will probably hurt the US economy, in the short term at least. The long term is hard to say really. But yes, I'm also sceptical that you can just un-globalise from a world-economy because of supply-chains being so international and markets becoming smaller.

That's not going to happen. What Trump will do is to alienate it's allies and wreck the American economy. And Russia will be very happy about it. — ssu

If it wrecks the US economy, it will wreck everybodies economy I would think, or at least those of the West. And in a more dystopian view of the future where everybody is in shambles, when the dust is settled the position of the US may not be that bad comparitively speaking, protected by two oceans and a ton of resources to work with.

Anyway, a lot of this depends on how you view the future. If you believe the current path of globalisation wasn't sustainable anyway, and was going to break eventually, then yeah maybe there is something to be said for anticipating that and trying to become more self-sufficient in advance.

But yes, at the very least it seems like a very risky leap into the dark.

Yes I think you are right, economic globalisation was the cause of the hollowing out. But they see it as sort of a package deal maybe, for globalisation you need free trade, for that you need trade routes to be save, to protect those you need a global security order... If your aim is to rely less on globalisation, the security needs also change presumably.

The security required for global trade is not a military deployment. It is an international world order. The soft power and diplomacy, creating over an extended period an atmosphere of trust, respectability and cooperation between nations and regions. Piracy (which would require a naval presence) has only been a minor issue in certain regions.

So again It is a flawed argument, a non argument. But we do know, don’t we that all the arguments coming out of Trump’s White House are flawed, or non arguments. As his modus operandi is disinformation. We have to judge him by his actions, while rejecting his reasoning in favour of the established (over a long period) narrative.

If it wrecks the US economy, it will wreck everybodies economy I would think, or at least those of the West.

There are degrees of wrecking. I don’t think we are talking of full economic collapse, just a serious recession, or depression. This would not wreck the global economy, although it would bring on a recession. But the bad effects will mainly be felt in the U.S. such changes over the short period will likely stimulate economic growth in other regions. The crisis in the U.S. is deeper than economic though, so it is very much a U.S. problem and could take a few years to sort out.

The security required for global trade is not a military deployment. It is an international world order. The soft power and diplomacy, creating over an extended period an atmosphere of trust, respectability and cooperation between nations and regions. Piracy (which would require a naval presence) has only been a minor issue in certain regions. — Punshhh

I agree for the most part, although I do think all these things can't be neatly seperated from eachother. I don't think you would have the same stable international order if there wasn't a superior military backing it, even if it isn't used in an obvious direct way to protect it.

So again It is a flawed argument, a non argument. But we do know, don’t we that all the arguments coming out of Trump’s White House are flawed, or non arguments. As his modus operandi is disinformation. We have to judge him by his actions, while rejecting his reasoning in favour of the established (over a long period) narrative. — Punshhh

Yes they are creating an ideology to support their ambitions for power... to rationalise their actions and garner support from people.

To clarify, my goal is not to find out the truth about the matter per se, but to get a clearer picture of what their ideology is. Because eventhough the ideology isn't necessarily about the truth, it is often a sign for what they want to accomplish, and it does influence people.... and because it influences people it will have real consequences.

For example, let's say they want Greenland to extract future resources and/or maybe for future security. They will say Europe are a bunch freeloaders, Denmark isn't a good ally and doesn't invest enough in Greenland, and Russia and China are looking to controle it etc etc. Aside from the truth about Denmarks and other countries actions, it does create a story which would make it easier to sell a possible take-over of Greenland to the people somewhere down the line.

In the overall it will probably hurt the US economy, in the short term at least. The long term is hard to say really. But yes, I'm also sceptical that you can just un-globalise from a world-economy because of supply-chains being so international and markets becoming smaller. — ChatteringMonkey

Just look at Brexit and the thread that we have here on PF. Now basically the last thing that the Brexiteers, who were so enthusiastic about Brexit, emphasize that the "will of the people" in the vote should be respected. And that's it. Nobody is trying to argue about green chutes or the benefits that Brexit has given to them. Yet for many years until Labor took over, they were anticipating the benefits of Brexit to be just around the corner.

And if everything goes to hell in a handbasket, the MAGA crowd won't admit it, and only will start to bitch about the economy when an administration lead by the Democracts replace the Trump administration.

Just look at Brexit and the thread that we have here on PF. Now basically the last thing that the Brexiteers, who were so enthusiastic about Brexit, emphasize that the "will of the people" in the vote should be respected. And that's it. Nobody is trying to argue about green chutes or the benefits that Brexit has given to them. Yet for many years until Labor took over, they were anticipating the benefits of Brexit to be just around the corner. — ssu

You cannot always evaluate a decision like Brexit on the outcomes a few years later, as if that decision is the sole cause for how the future turned out. It has to be said that the British Republican party was exceptionally inept at implementing Brexit and capitalizing on opportunities it created.

It has to be said that the British Republican party was exceptionally inept at implementing Brexit and capitalizing on opportunities it created. — ChatteringMonkey

And how professional and able you think Donald Trump will be in capitalizing on the opportunities a trade war against basically everybody? You think there's going to be these advantages?

Just think about it. What could have the UK done to give the promised wonderful future that the Brexiteers argued at? What was to be that great solution with Brexit? There wasn't any. That's the whole issue here. It wasn't that the Conservatives were exceptionally inept, the fact was that the idea of getting this incredible jolt of prosperity from withdrawing from Europe was simply total horseshit, a straight lie.

Just look at how trade with the EU has gone:



And compare then the total trade of the UK:


As both tables above are comparable with each other, one can easily see just how important even today the EU is as a trading partner for the UK. The only thing that has happened is that imports from the EU have increased while the exports from UK (both to EU and in total), after 2020 Brexit drop and recovery have in the last years decreased.

I don't disagree with you here, just saying there's probably more going on with the UK than Brexit alone. And you also had COVID, the energy crisis etc etc... it's not as if Europe has been doing that great either.

What was to be that great solution with Brexit? — ssu

I'm not saying this would have solved the problem, but If you're going to go for Brexit you got to use the freedom from European rules (for example state aid rules) to invest in your industry and (energy)infrastructure, and to make your economy more competitive and attractive by cutting taxes and regulation... If you want trade, you have to make something to trade in the first place.

There are a lot of "awakenings" on the horizon. The American government is helping to make the world "woke" in the original political/economic definition of the word. The US did an important thing to help Europe and Asia recover after WWII. I believe it helped stall further lower level conflicts in a war-shredded world where the powerful could've created empires to rival anything in history. The US was an enabler in the economic growth of the world. Unfortunately they were an enabler too long, which is not healthy for either party in the relationship.
The US is ripping off the band-aid, so to speak, that covered the other war-torn parts of the world after their injury from that global war. It would've been nice if it could have been done more gradually, but I believe doing it gradually would have been negotiated into doing the least amount to keep everyone happy.
In the formation of whatever comes next, past globalization of economic production will have an effect on whatever new alliances are created. Most nations will not antagonize other nations upon whose goods they depend on. Whichever nations build up their self-sufficiency in this new world will be able to determine their own fates. The ones that do it better will be more in control of their situation in the world.
And yes, it will be more expensive, for everyone.

Like becoming aware of the water we swim in... problem is the water turns out to be stale. It probably could have used a stirring and some fresh air a bit sooner.

The US is ripping off the band-aid, so to speak, that covered the other war-torn parts of the world after their injury from that global war. It would've been nice if it could have been done more gradually, but I believe doing it gradually would have been negotiated into doing the least amount to keep everyone happy. — alleybear

Who is going to be hurt with the ripping of the band-aid is here the real question.

I think it's the Americans themselves that have forgotten that this whole World order has served themselves a lot. The American elite and the foreign policy establishment has done a major error of not informing the American people about this. This is the fact that is totally missing from the understanding of the JD Vance's of today. Every fourth quarter from a dollar that the US government spends is debt, yet that hasn't been any problem as the World has needed dollars because of the reserve currency. What would the loss of the reserve status mean? Well, the US economy is roughly one fourth of the World GDP, so without the reserve status the normal status would be a reserve of one fourth or perhaps one third of the global currencies held. Not the 60% that it now enjoys now:



And here the counterargument that "What then would replace the dollar?" isn't valid. Nothing has to replace it. Throughout history there hasn't been a "reserve currency", only perhaps gold and silver, and you can use a basket of currencies quite easily to handle bigger amounts of money transfers.

How Trump's "Smoot-Hawley II" will go now, let's just see how awful that will be.

I don't think you would have the same stable international order if there wasn't a superior military backing it, even if it isn't used in an obvious direct way to protect it.

Yes, it would not require a level of deployment that could be described as overstretch. Also it could be a coalition.

To clarify, my goal is not to find out the truth about the matter per se, but to get a clearer picture of what their ideology is. Because eventhough the ideology isn't necessarily about the truth, it is often a sign for what they want to accomplish, and it does influence people.... and because it influences people it will have real consequences.

Well my take on this is that it’s a mess, composed of the wims of a senile wannabe dictator, a hard right reform agenda Project 25 and a process of Orbanisation to weaken democracy.

As for the goal, well I’m not sure they have one, but rather a trajectory. Again a combination of the three ideologies above.

What it will look like, a skip fire.

As for the goal, well I’m not sure they have one, but rather a trajectory. — Punshhh

The lofty goals might be to get manufacturing back to the US and a third term for Trump, but it's just a trajectory that they have put into motion. Now on what trajectory the US and the Global economy is on is the question, but it doesn't look so good.

What it will look like, a skip fire. — Punshhh

And what is said about Skip fires?

Skips are not designed to have fires started in them and the fire can quickly rage out of control while it could cause damage to the skip which means that you could find yourself facing a fine for the damage.

Furthermore, depending on where you have your skip positioned, the extreme heat at the bottom of the skip can cause surfaces such as tarmac to melt. If you have your skip located on a public highway, you might find that you are billed for the damage and the relaying of a new surface.

Others seem now to just look how Trump's fire will go and how the starter of the fire will handle his smoky effort. The US and China are now in a full blown trade war and other countries are looking at 10% tariffs. Already Trump has backed down on some electronics like smartphones. And likely many we will wait until those 90 days will pass and see what Trump will do next.

The bond market and the so-called "bond vigilantes" put Trump to back down already from his ultra-high tariffs. And this is the interesting and crucial part here: how will the US treasury market behave in the future? "The flee to safety" wasn't to the US bond market, as it usually has gone to when the market corrects. Gold has gone up. The Swiss franc is already showing signs of being one "harbour for safety" as the US dollar has plummeted to the franc quite dramatically.



Likely again the small European country will have it's exports industry howling for a devaluation and the interest rates might get to be negative again.

How other countries deal with the new situation is going to be interesting. Diversification to new trading partners will be the hot topic now.

Yes and will the split between the U.K. and the EU widen. The EU will likely side with China, the U.K. looks to be siding with the U.S.(although Starmer seems to be playing the cakism game and sitting on the fence as long as possible).

Will the split between UK and EU widen?

Hopefully not.

The UK is actually doing a lot especially when it comes to Ukraine with EU countries. Ukraine is the really one disagreement here with the US and the UK is quite on the side of the EU. And remember that the tariffs are in effect with the UK too. I think there should be a way to form back the close ties. I think best example would be a free trade zone between USMCA and UK and EU. In fact the present Trump chaos might give us reason to think so. After following this quite disastrous tariff policy, the outcome can be something different. Just like the first Trump tariffs in the end resulted in the USMCA.

And note that the EU is really a union. It is made up of sovereign states which have to find common ground. It isn't an Imperial player.

Yes, the moves towards greater cooperation on defence are promising. It’s more in terms of trade that I’m worried about the approach of the U.K. government. This is not a new thing, repeatedly U.K. governments have leaned in the direction of the U.S. to try to be a bridge between the U.S. and Europe. A fetishisation of the special relationship.
Now we are out of the EU there is a real possibility that the U.K. could become tied in to U.S. trade demands, driving a wedge between them and the EU. We have not diverged yet and the path to a realignment with the EU is clear. Trump is trying to break and prevent this.

Seems that Trump's idiotic "Recession by tariffs" is coming closer. Hence Trump seems to be begging for the Chinese to "come to the table". Yet the consequences of the trade war are finally coming to shelves of American stores next month.

A good overall recap how international trade to the US from Asia (especially China) is starting to show:



It seems like that China is not in hurry to stop the trade war. Even so, two of the largest economies being in an all out trade war is not good for the rest of the World.

That there is a global problem seems to be the case, when Japan has it's close encounters with a bond crisis. It's interest rates have spiked up and this causes a severe problem to the country as it has 270% debt to GDP. Japan has to get it's fiscal house in order, which can result in assets now for example in US Treasuries being sold and put into Japanese debt.

This can be bad. At worst it could start a dollar crisis along the road and a huge crisis for the whole fiat monetary system.

Very seldom does a central banker give such a straightforward lecture on the large picture of monetary policy. (Especially Fed Chairmen can give extremely cryptic talks.) But here Christine Lagarde (ECB chief) does just that with clarity, perhaps because she is giving a lecture to students. She starts with a historical viewpoint on the role of the reserve currency through time. What one rarely hears is a central banker truly talking about the role of gold, "the barbarous relict" according to Keynes, in our fiat currency system even today. She also notes one important factor: the key role that military deterrence and defence alliances have today on the role of the reserve currency. Her speech starts at 06:33 after an introduction:



What is obvious that she does see a role for the Euro and the ECB, and the speech is basically an acknowledgement that things are indeed changing.

The crazy stuff that Trump is doing might bring the issue of the reserve currency to be a current question, not just a theoretical question. Lagarde also goes through what are the strenghts of the US economy and where the EU is lacking.