What would be more sensible to do for the US to re-balance trade deficits and security issues with Canada? — neomac

And you think anything like that can be made with a demented and crazy idea of annexing Canada? They aren't willing to be Americans, it's just extremely offensive. And if by a magical wand Canada would be a part of the US, they'd be hardcore Democrats against the MAGA-cult. And Canada isn't so "white" anymore that the racists would get a response to the "browning" of the US. It's simply utterly crazy and you just sidelining the whole issue as it wouldn't be the reason for the anger in Canada simply shows it.

Still: (About Article III — neomac

Well, what are the Europeans doing? In fact this is the most logical response. When Trump is wanting them to spend more on defense, they are spending more on defense. If the US is leaving NATO -> spend more on defense. This is a no-brainer.

But Trump leaving NATO, perhaps on similar invented reason like the fentanol-issue with Canada, is that they don't spend 5%, which even the US doesn't spend. So Trump can walk away. In fact, it seems that Trump is walking away from every alliance the US has, except Israel.

Yet even the allies of the US on the other side of the World do think that supporting Ukraine is important, like Japan.

Unlike what Trump says, Ukraine does have some cards. They’ve agreed with Trump - EXTRA BONUS POINTS - plus they have something the US wants. So Putin now has to weigh up whether to agree to a ceasefire or to keep fighting. — Wayfarer

Trump's treatment of Ukraine has just increased the support from Europe as without the US, Russia is a real threat to Europe. The largest army that is opposing Russia in Europe is Ukraine.

One thing Putin could do is to agree on a cease-fire, then continue the attacks and blame Ukraine for breaching the cease-fire. Guess on whose side the US would be? Yet this has a lot of disadvantages. Any ceasefire would have a massive effect on the domestic front in Russia. Many Russia do want the war to end and with a cease-fire their hopes would go up. Also it would put the warhawks in Russia in a bad position. Now the call that Russia is winning can be repeated and the war continued as the US and the West have "shown their weakness".

Not surprising when a secessionist is put into the Oval Office. America has elected an enemy of the state to lead the state. He’ll work on destroying the state under the pretence of reforming it. Oddly, many people can’t see this. — Wayfarer

Yes, Putin will play the idiot Trump like a fiddle. He knows that come the next election and Trump leaves office, that the U.S. might be back to business as usual. That this is his only chance/opportunity to break NATO and the Western alliance. He will probably lead Trump down the garden path right into a trap and champagne corks will be popping in Moscow and Beijing.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, MAGA May feel a bit odd when they realise that they are not MAGA any more, MRGA. And Putin will get his hands on Ukraine’s resources and bread basket ( just as climate change starts to bite). — Punshhh

I totally agree with both of you.

I think it would be valuable to think just why all of this can happen. Why are Americans so OK with ruining their alliances and creating themselves misery with the tariffs? This goes further than Trump.

I think at least one reason is that US Foreign policy has been marketed to the American people basically only with fear, with the threat of Communism and later with the threat of Islamic Terrorism. The basics aren't at all put into the minds of everybody like that having international trade creates prosperity, because you aren't making stuff or selling a service just to your own people, but the whole World. Or that international institutions, the rule based order, or things like safety of commerce on the World's seas creates that prosperity. When the income and benefits of globalization have gone to the richest Americans and not to the ordinary people, hatred towards globalization and the international liberal order increases. Yet this is a question of distribution of income inside the US, not because of globalization itself. Yet would this be given as the true reason here? Of course not! Whipping up xenophobia against foreigners is far easier.

And that's why Trump echoes this delusional falsehoods that alliances are a burden, that the EU was created to screw over the US, or that the US would be better with high tariffs. Every other Western country understands that trade barriers aren't good, only if you haven't basically got your own industry or it's in it's infancy. Otherwise it's all about being competitive in the global market and specialization with only the exception of having as safety enough own production for instance to feed the society, if international trade receives shocks.

As these policies are extremely harmful for the US, it's totally understandable that an adversary like Russia would want to promote this kind of populism, where the enemy is the US government itself.

You are offering reasons which could plausibly be compelling to many Europeans (people and politicians). — neomac

Just look at how the US northern neighbors are taking Trumps nonsense. Most stupid to harm good ties with your neighbors. All this 51st state humbug really worth it?

But the US would not be alone if Russia partners with the US. — neomac

That is quite a hypothetical.

I do have the feeling that not everybody that is in charge of the American foreign policy is so eager as some Elon Musk to withdraw the US from NATO (and the UN btw). And a lot of those critique about NATO that I've read from Americans is usually their anger that it hasn't worked as tool of the US because it genuinely is an international organization where members aren't obligated to follow what the US president wants. This is something that many anti-American commentators forget. A lot of the critique was about the mission: in the 1990's and 2000'stalk of it being a defensive treaty (against Russia or other threat) was totally outmoded. If Finland would have joined NATO when the first enlargement happened, NATO likely would have demanded us to get rid of conscription and have a professional army, that can give forces to outside the area operations. Back then Russia wasn't a threat, you know.

And of course, you might take into account the possibility that Russia, which just last year declared the US being an enemy and it being at war with NATO, might not be so trusting with the US and so eagerly become it's loyal sidekick, but simply might want to fuck the US up as much as possible.

So let's just see how they react to the Trump peace treaty. As Marco Rubio said, the ball is now in their court. Let's just see if there's a 30 cease fire and if the Russians will respect the cease-fire.

And of course, as stupendously outrageous it might seem, Trump's actions have really lead to the European mainstream media to question if "Agent Krasnow":

Deutsche Welle:


France24:

Indeed it does.

And if Ukraine is slaughtered by a Molotov-Ribbentrop, sorry, Trump-Putin agreement, and given to Russia, it will stiffen the European response to a whole new level.

Her greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S. — Punshhh

Add to that how Trump is behaving his own Constitution and the separation of powers, this all could end up very ugly.

Seems that Russia is getting it's deal thanks to it's friend Trump.

(Kyiv Post) The White House is rapidly moving toward accepting key Russian demands to end the war in Ukraine, including by backing the Kremlin’s four-point “peace plan” – undercutting Kyiv’s position – and by pushing a global narrative that calls for the replacement of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky among other pro-Russian actions, according to interviews with multiple senior Ukrainian officials and previously unreported documents reviewed by Kyiv Post.

The documents suggest that Washington has grown more receptive to the Kremlin’s narrative on the origins of the war – one that Moscow is now aggressively promoting to Western audiences, say sources. This narrative claims that NATO expansion and alleged discrimination against Russian speakers in Ukraine were key triggers for the conflict, despite these claims having been repeatedly debunked since Russia first used them to justify its 2014 invasion of Crimea.

A 30-day cease fire.

Wonder how long that will last.

From the US perspective, such military alliance with Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? — neomac

Yes, I definately do!

If the US walks away from NATO alliance, that past American leaders worked so hard for, it will leave 31 countries 633 million people simply being competitors, which don't have much incentive to adjust their policies to the US foreign policy or basically even listen to the US as they have done now.

Secondly, the US just lost a HUGE, REALLY HUGE (as Trump would say) defense market that the Europeans will now try frantically to bring up, because the US is so unreliable. The US has been selling more weapons and arms to Europe that it has sold to the Middle East. Tell me, how on earth has that been a burden to you? 1/3 or so of arms exports going to Europe EVEN when Europe was spending so little on defence. You think it's a little thing that you lose more than a third of your arms exports to Europe, really? Even now, there like 500 aircraft still being in the lines to be delivered to Europe. That should tell you something. Now there's going to be a dramatic change, just like there has been with Tesla sales. But you can go with the "Europe is a burden for us" narrative.

Thirdly, France has already said that it can enlarge it's nuclear deterrence (as there is no credible US nuclear deterrence) to other EU/NATO member states. This is called strategic autonomy. It means simply: don't rely on America. And now other European countries have to agree with this. Crucial weapon systems like the nuclear deterrent should be 100% in your own hands. The UK's

Fourth, when for the first time since basically 1945 you voted in the UN against your allies and with your adversaries like North Korea, which btw you have only a cease-fire agreement, it seems that the US doesn't stand anymore for those ideals that it stood with alongside it's Western allies. If it's all just transactional, then it's quite evident that the Russia/US will ideologically.

That all above just shows how the Great Weakening of the US will happen. Why Americans want to emasculate themselves, drop their values and just serve few billionaires is beyond me. In fact what Trump (and seems that you too) don't understand at all is the following: keep your largest potential rivals as friends and allies to you. That is how you had Pax Americana, or the US as a Superpower. Now thanks to Trump, the MAGA-crowd is destroying this.

If you have the time, just listen this speech by Ursula von der Leyen about the urgent need for rapid rearming of Europe. And do notice that she talks of EUROPEAN military industry, EUROPEAN joint acquisitions and never, ever, talks about the US or relying on it's defense industry. Perhaps what Trump in his senility doesn't understand that if he demands Europe to pay, Europe will increase it's defense spending, but that won't come to him...

And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China, this may be an acceptable compensation. — neomac

And just where do you get this sort of hallucinations from? Why would Putin do that? What fucking delusional incentive would he have for that? At least one third of Russia's exports go to China now. Russia has a huge long border with China and a nearly empty Siberia facing populous China. It makes absolutely great sense for Russia to be good friends with China. What the hell do you think Russia would gain from opposing China and braking the warm ties the countries have? That China could then demand back the territories that belonged to it earlier in Siberia? It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all.

If it doesn't, well Russia will remain the primary incumbent threat to the Europeans wrt the US, and this will keep Russia occupied on its western front. So the US will still rip some benefits off without indebting itself further toward Europe. — neomac

Aren't you forgetting, that the parasitic Gay Europe wokesters aren't going to be around like they were in Kuwait/Bosnia/Kosovo/Indian Ocean (Somali pirates)/Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq? So go to fight your fight with China, because even Australia doesn't seem worth as an ally to you:



Either we have the "agent Krasnov" case or then, well, I don't know the reasoning here.

It's like a leader of a wolfpack that has gotten tired of it's position and see's his own pack as just a futile bunch of meaningless followers, who don't even stand up against him. Well, if the leader then decides to bite and attack every of pack members and decides to go it alone, it's should know it leaves a pack of wolves behind it. And good hunting all alone.

I can readily concede that Trump’s approach is not immune from risks. But we can agree on the fact that the US doesn’t look in danger of being aggressed and occupied as other European countries bordering with Russia, right? — neomac

A lot of countries aren't danger of being occupied by Russia, but they sure can feel Russian hybrid warfare and the political pressure. Don't think that this only about direct military confrontation. What the US is doing, is just destroying it's own credibility and it's own base of power, that has grown from having such wide alliances. Russia has just one ally willing to fight alongside it: North Korea. China doesn't have even that. Yet the US has many that have been willing to fight it's wars. But this naturally Trump doesn't understand: that it has been the military alliance that has made the West, the largest competitors to the US in trade, to agree on things like the US dollar being the reserve currency.

Broadcast on Russian TV last night. Solovyov saying that there is no need for a ceasefire now, JD Vance is their man. — Punshhh

This is the reality. There is no need for Russia to negotiate anything while Trump is giving everything to them. It's only in these hallucinations of Trump that Putin would want peace and be willing to sit down for negotiations. For surrender, he might be willing to sit down.

But do the MAGA-people get this? Of course not.

Has it not occurred to him that the economic prosperity the West has enjoyed over the last 80years is reliant on peace and stability and good relations between trading partners around the world. And that all this strong man disruption that he’s doing is only going to disrupt that peace and stability resulting in recession, or depression? — Punshhh

No. Absolutely not. Likely as old he is and when surrounded by sycophants, he won't get the message.

For example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that anybody would dare to say to him just how bad the Doha peace agreement with the Taleban was and how it totally pulled the rug from under the Republic of Afghanistan. No, what he thinks is that only Biden fucked it up and everybody around him repeats this. And hence he is doing the bidding of Putin now with Ukraine, intentionally or unintentionally.

Trade and tariffs? Let's remember that this has been what he has been talking all his life, earlier it was how Japan was ripping the US off and how the US should have trade barriers. Now it's just China and Europe. Everybody is ripping of the US. Why wouldn't he believe that, because he himself is more of a scam artist? Things like the market crashing and US facing recession doesn't just stop him for a while in his tracks, but he cannot let go of the tariff-stupidity. And hence the markets waver and we head more likely to a recession.

The idea, which history has proven again and again, is that trade and commerce between countries is the thing that creates prosperity to all doesn't get to him. He genuinely believes that Europe has been a free rider and that the West being an alliance hasn't been beneficial to the US. And that the European Union was formed to rip off the US. Not that the whole idea of European integration was a result of the Great War and it's sequel, WW2 and the millions of dead Europeans, not just a trick for the rich to get richer.

Apart of Trump and the populist rhetoric, I think here I would find one real culprit is how the US government itself. It has been incapable of getting the message through to it's citizens about just why the US has had a foreign policy of engagement. The foreign policy establishment, the blob, has simply resorted to paint only threats that the US has to respond to. And that kicks up a patriotic fervor especially after something like 9/11. And then it's off to the races. And then the people forget just why was the fighting something that seems to be a forever war

European governments have acted differently. They've always repeated to their citizens about how important working together is. And just to reaffirm this reality, the UK showed to all Europe just what an epic failure Brexit was. And this shouldn't be underestimated: the absolute failure of Brexit showed other Europeans just how much it would suck to get out of the EU and just how little benefits would there be.

Iran is likely licking it's wounds for now, but the basic problem is that as a state like Syria has basically become a failed state in the way that it cannot secure it's borders, there are ample regional actors that will interfere in the country. Best example of this is Libya.

This isn't anything new, actually. When Finland got it's independence and after it fought it's War of Indpendence/Civil War, it had a brief period of Swedish forces occupying Åland Islands, then German troops in the South assisting the Whites, few French and British troops up in the north and once when Germany lost the war British Navy actively operating against Bolsheviks in the Gulf of Finland. (In fact post WW1 era in Eastern Europe is one of the most crazy times ever as all the great empires, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia had collapsed.)

A weakened state attracts neighbors to come in as vultures. But once the victim gets up on his feet, the vultures won't attack you.

The real question here is, if Syria will be able to get its act together and finally secure it's borders. The Alawites might not be the only problem, then there's the Kurds up in Northeastern Syria.

Trump administration stopping USAID isn't going to help this, actually.

As the objective likely for the neighbors is to make Syria a failed state and as weak as Lebanon, I'm sure that someone will start funding the Alawites. Likely Israel, because why not.

BEIRUT/WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Israel is lobbying the United States to keep Syria weak and decentralised, including by letting Russia keep its military bases there to counter Turkey's growing influence in the country, four sources familiar with the efforts said.

Turkey's often fraught ties with Israel have come under severe strain during the Gaza war and Israeli officials have told Washington that Syria's new Islamist rulers, who are backed by Ankara, pose a threat to Israel's borders, the sources said.

And what will Iran do now? That's a good question too.

Shorting? I'm not a day trader either.

Last time I did anything like that (shorting the market) was during the Financial Crisis 2008, when I invested some money to an inverse fund. Luckily I did get my money back with some profit, but that was a really, really delicate move. I remember that then the alarm bell was for me when an financial advisor didn't find any stocks to invest in (which had happened never in my life and hasn't happened later). And actually in this forum (or it's predecessor) I got a stern warning before the first bank collapses happened and I started to look just how bad it was and what kind of a bubble there was in the US housing market. So never underestimate this Forum, actually.

What I've done now is take away some investments from stock and have more in cash and gold. And sold some timber, because the prices are high and likely my country will too face the Trump recession, the timber prices can even go down. And because it's physical timber, you basically do it once in your lifetime. My children can then sell again when they are at my age.

I've learnt that you can be happy when you just avoid the huge collapses and not lose your money in them.

The market corrects and then continues. They will abide, it's actual prices of milk and gasoline and bread that will get people up in arms. — Benkei

And as we can assume that Trump does follow the market and does listen to the complaints from industry execs, he will continue to hesitate for a while with the tariff stupidity. Because he cannot yet forget them totally. And that's enough to keep the markets really on the edge.

But on the longer time than day or a week or two, the likely of it going down is quite high ...at least if measured in real prices (inflation adjusted).

And anyway, wasn't this totally predictable when an lunatic idiot in charge thinks that cross-the-range 25% tariffs will help the economy, but won't raise inflation / lower consumption?

How about for that stagflation, people?

Yeah, a central banker who has pictures with Ghislaine Maxwell. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. — NOS4A2

Oh, he's a friend of Trump?

Okay, well, those circles are small. What can you say. :lol:

How many Canucks have you gotten to want to join the US, @NOS4A2?




The likely new Canadian leader Mark Carney: "In trade, as in hockey, Canada will win."

Ah, I love the smell of trade war in the morning... :blush:

All Trump needs to do is say if Russia doesn’t compromise, U.S. support for Ukraine would be doubled. Or they would give them full air support. A Strong U.S. leader would be able to do this. I suspect Trump is weak. — Punshhh

Everything points to this. Forget even the talk, forget the "great television", if we just look at the actions that Trump actually has done, they all favor Russia and hinder the ability for Ukraine to defend itself.

Now it really is about if Europe truly see the urgency here, because Ukraine will start having real problems soon, not just that more missiles and drones get through the air defense and Russian aircraft can fly closer as now.

To cut off the updates to F-16 fighters actually sends a quite nasty message to all clients of American weapon systems. If Trump can so easily stab in the back Ukraine here, how easily will the US do this to any of the so-called allies? Trump has shown that he can easily stab in the back his allies. Just like he doubted that if US would seek Article 5 protection, that France would come really to help. Likely he didn't remember that France did come to help the US when Article 5 was implemented after 9/11. But the comment does hint that the US wouldn't come to help France.



And the possibility of Trump exiting NATO is growing. Because the next issue is when Europe starts to replacing US systems with it's own to help Ukraine, Trump might get angry about it.

Already the idea is floated around that the US should leave NATO:

(Fox News, March 3rd 2025) Momentum is building among some Republicans and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk to withdraw the U.S. from NATO amid stalled negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

While President Donald Trump reportedly privately floated pulling the U.S. from the alliance during his first term, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has publicly backed such efforts in recent weeks and said it's "time to leave" the alliance after NATO countries held an emergency meeting with Ukraine in London without the U.S.

Lee said in an X post on Sunday that if "NATO is moving on without the U.S.," the U.S. should "move on from NATO." Lee also suggested various names for the movement on Monday.

"What should we call the movement to get America out of NATO? AmerExit? NATexit?" Lee said in an X post on Monday, referencing Brexit, the term used to describe the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union.

"It’s a good thing our NATO allies give us such favorable trade terms based on the fact that we provide a disproportionate share of their security needs Oh wait ….They don’t," Lee said in another Monday post on X.

On the good side, Musk backed down from shutting down starlink from Ukraine. At least Elon understood that his commercial product will face problems, if the producers shuts down the service from customers so easily.

Well a lot of countries do this, Turkey has aspirations of taking back the whole Ottoman empire for instance, that doesn't mean they will start invading those countries necessarily. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually no. Very few countries have aspirations for territorial expansion. UK, Austria, France, Spain, Germany etc. don't have politicians pushing for conquering the lost territories and bring back the former glory of a past empire. Putin does (unlike Jeffrey Sachs says). We are totally blind if we don't see this. And Russians that I've talked here in Finland (who can openly share their minds) don't like Putin. In fact, only in 2014 I saw two Russians in Helsinki with the black and orange stripes. Countries that have desires like this are few, yet they aren't nonexistent.

The liberal democratic order was West-centric, with notions such as Univeral rights not making a lot of sense for other societies, and often used to unnecessarily antagonise them. — ChatteringMonkey

How do universal rights not make a lot of sense for other societies? What other societies are you thinking of? Are they somehow incapable of living up to our level or simply just love more autocracy?

I think the Estonians are extremely happy to live in a democracy with those universal rights than to be under the jackboot of Russia. Besides, Putin's Russia has now MORE political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during Brezhnev... and the country was far larger than now. Why do you disregard and throw away values and rights that at least my grandfathers fought for? And why talk of it in past tense. You think that democracy has already died?

NATO should be replaced by our own European security achitecture, and I think that would healthy because then we will need to take it seriously and can determine our own course... and devellop some geo-political consciousness again. — ChatteringMonkey

NATO will be replaced by an European security architechture, if Trump wants to destroy as Putin would desire and if we and the Americans let him do that. And then Russia will go against that European rump-NATO and the European Union.

The European Union needs to be reformed too, maybe replaced by a federation or something. — ChatteringMonkey

Nah. Reform it on the way, but no reason to change the name. And a US style federation won't work.

You need real agency at the top if you want to be a player on the world stage, and you can't have that if you are perpetually divided with that many member states. - I would stop a lot of the harmonisation efforts of the Commission so countries have more say again in how they want to organise their state. Real diversity in countries and unity in strength under Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

These two seem to be opposed to the other.

I would suggest the ability to go forward with a "coalition of the willing" in issues and that there isn't the ability of one or two countries to simply oppose everything and bloc action of the union. And simply to understand that EU has it's limitations, it cannot act as a single nation state, but it can act as a pact.

The most urgent issue is that our politicians wake up to the threat that the Putin/Trump pact is for Europe. In no way this appeasement and support that Trump gives to Putin (with the alt-right cheering it) serves the interests of Europe. Likely Putin has promised Trump a bigger "minerals deal" if he hands over Ukraine to Russia. All the actions taken by to undermine Ukraine start unveiling a really bad situation. And Trumps obsession for Greenland (and Canada) perhaps shows that Trump is drooling for riches in this new imperialist game he wants to play with Putin, who is in real trouble otherwise.

It is a big deal for Europe because it is one of the big factors hurting the economy. Energy-prices are being pushed higher because of the lack of Russian gas. If energy-prices are that high you simply can't compete in the world economy and you will see more and more industry disappearing. — ChatteringMonkey

A bigger reason is that countries haven't had a realistic energy policies in the first place. Especially thinking that renewable energy will take care of everything and fossil fuels don't matter is the primary cause. Germany went and closed it's nuclear energy for no reason and the UK's energy situation isn't bad because of Russia.

Non of this makes sense from the point of view of Europes interests, but I guess we should just make that sacrifice because it is the 'moral' thing to do. — ChatteringMonkey

This isn't about "morality", it's about sovereignty and independence of the nation states belonging to Europe. We aren't supporting Ukraine just because Russia invaded it. We are anticipating the next move already.

How can I state this?

Perhaps coming back to video you posted on another thread about Jeffrey Sachs and his speech at the EU Parliament. (I listened to the speech, not the questions later)

First, does Sachs say anything negative about Putin's Russia? Does he mention the annexation of Crimea? No, he skipped that. If I remember correctly, according to him all rhetoric of Russia having territorial aspirations was "childish propaganda". So what Putin talks to the Russian people and has written about the "artificiality" of Ukraine and the injustice Russia has been a victim with losing Crimea doesn't matter or itself is childish propaganda too?

You simply have to be yourself critical about and notice the bias that Sachs has here. Is he right about the US giving up Middle East policy to Netanyahu? Yes, I think so. Did Brzezinski write "The Grand Chessboard" with aggressive hubris towards Russia? Yes, I have the book in bookshelf, yet it wasn't an US masterplan for Russia, because Brzezinski was just one voice in the cacophony of US foreign policy community of competing think tanks and commentators. Just like Jeffrey Sachs himself and his friend John Mearsheimer are. China or Russia might have masterplans, the US, not so.

Please understand that Russia and especially Putin's Russia is equally ruthlessly playing a similar, far more persistent game while every now and then the US administration changes and the priorities change. Even Gorbachev, Sachs' hero, hoped that the Soviet Union could "Finlandize" Europe, which means the Soviet Union having basically a say in domestic politics and in foreign policy of other the countries. That is at stake here. Supporting Ukraine isn't just based on what is morally right. Putin won't end at Ukraine, especially if it is given to him on a silver platter.

You might argue that isn't the US doing the same, trying to influence smaller states? Well, it really is different having been the ally of Soviet Union and Russia or having been an "ally" of the US. Just ask WHY people in former Warsaw countries wanted to join NATO? And btw, naturally every ambassador tries to influence their host countries, yet the vast of them in a friendly and open manner.

Yet since Trump has become the bully here, just watch the outcome of that with the ties with European countries. It won't go well. You see, for 76 years the US has played correctly it's cards with Europe, starting from the Marshal Plan, the Berlin Airlift, from president Kennedy stating "Ich bin ein Berliner" to president Reagan stating "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". That is the America that critics of US foreign policy will on purpose not talk about, because that would blur their agenda. Yet that is the US that many Europeans remember.

Now all that is being thrown away with the contempt and disregard, near hostility that Trump is showing against Europe. With asking for Greenland and questioning the whole sovereignty of Canada the devils of jingoism and xenophobia are summoned up and the supporters of the Trump/Putin-axis market this as being part of "realpolitik", while those defending the international order are accused to be stooges of the "deep state".

Well, if national security doesn't mean anything to you, have then Putin destroy everything. He will. Because the next target after NATO will be the European Union. Sow discord and discontent in Europe is the way forward for Russia. Trump is doing the work for Putin in an astonishing way.

I'd go a bit further: there should have been a much stronger response in 2014, enough to be a deterrent. — jorndoe

Yes, you are totally correct. Or better perhaps, after the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. But that was the time when American politicians dreamed about a "Reset" with Russia. And what have we now? A belligerent Russia that seems to be winning the propaganda war at least in the US as the American president blames Ukraine for starting the war.

Do you not realize what precarious situation that gets us in? The last thing we should be doing at this particular moment is looking to get into prolonged wars. — ChatteringMonkey

Try to understand that helping Ukraine isn't such a huge deal, it's not at all so costly, especially compared to the War on Terror thing. The West is NOT IN A WAR. The only thing Ukraine has asked is weapons. And if we push them to accept peace, their argument of having some kind of security guarantees is totally logical. There has already been those peace talks of Minsk I and Minsk II, which Putin then simply ignored and continued fighting.

For the US, the cost of the war in Afghanistan was 2 trillion and the cost of Iraq war was similar, if not more. Now the military aid to Ukraine that the US actually has given is just 66 billion dollars. And a lot of that isn't actually so costly, because it has been old equipment that has was to be disregarded. For example, it hasn't been the US that has given the few F-16's, but smaller NATO countries.

And for Europe, that in all has spent 140 billion in military and other aid to Ukraine altogether? Let's just put this into context with the stimulus package of the past Corona pandemic:

The EU’s long-term budget, coupled with NextGenerationEU (NGEU), the temporary instrument designed to boost the recovery, form the largest stimulus package ever financed in Europe. A total of €2.018 trillion in current prices* are helping rebuild a post-COVID-19 Europe. It will be a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe.

That was actually so much that the money simply couldn't be spent. So we really have to understand that this whole war isn't of utter importance even to Europe and is only existential to Ukraine. And what von der Leyen has now proposed is defense spending of 800 billion, which all naturally doesn't go to Ukraine.

And let's put to context even that 800 billion. Israel's defense spending is about 30 billion, France has 61 billion and both of these countries have a nuclear deterrence. Ukraine is spending in the war 63 billion dollars and Russia defense spending is now something like 106 billion annually. So that people are talking about using the 300 billion in frozen assets and well over 100 billion, what the hell is wrong here?

Why this defeatism?

All of this is just that Trump wants Russia to win, that's all. He wants to punish Ukraine because it hasn't surrendered to his beloved dictatorship. So this war is painted to be a forever war, that somehow Russia cannot be fought to a standstill that is has to negotiate. Nope, have to surrender, Ukraine!!!

Yet even that isn't the real threat for the US. If Americans just let Trump trample the foundations of the separation of powers and the Constitution, the US will really be banana republic itself run just like Latin American states in the past with a Caudillo type person at the helm. And this is a totally different issue.

This means that the well-being of the citizens is at the heart of a healthy economy and national identity. Good health care, good social securities, good security from crime, good infrastructure, good funding of culture, taking care of the sick, weak and old etc. — Christoffer

Above all, a nation state isn't just a service. It simply isn't similar to going to the market and buying stuff or a service. True patriotism, love of your country, is one of those few ideas and values that a poor man and a rich man can share. It creates a lot that isn't transactional.

I think something more fundamental is going on, they are essentially trying to overthrow the liberal democratic order because they think it was destroying the US. And they think it's destroying Europe too... Europe is their ideological enemy now. — ChatteringMonkey

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Yet Trump is more of a threat to the US than he is to Europe. Europe can go it's own way, but Americans should deserve better than have this bully destroying everything. Power has simply gone to the head of the senile narcissist.

I understand that it would be bad for Ukraine. What I don't understand is why you think our negotiating position will become better if we continue the war. — ChatteringMonkey

Because what is there to negotiate but Ukraine surrendering? As I've said, if Putin can get what he wants, what is there to negotiate? Perhaps that Putin can weaken the resolution of the Ukrainians by Trump's "negotiations", which basically is that kick the hell out of Ukraine and lick the ass of Putin.

What the fuck is there to negotiate? How much more Ukraine has to surrender? And if those negotiations don't go through (meaning Ukraine doesn't want to surrender), you think Trump won't support his friend Vladimir and blame everything at Zelenskyi? Likely Europe will support Ukraine and then Trump leaves NATO. After all, how could he know that France actually did come to the help of the US when article 5 was implemented after 9/11.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance.

It hasn't been such a triumph for Russia as some even in this forum have portrayed it to be and Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

That's my hope. Right now, he's pissing off veterans again - the US has alot of veterans from its many unsuccessful wars - and maybe servicemen, too, which should make it harder for him to consolidate a military dictatorship. — Vera Mont

Since Trump, the draft-dodger, hasn't served, he doesn't understand at all that many people who do military service do take the oath that they give dead seriously. It's not just general Mark Milley, there will be resentment in the military if Trump disregards the Constitution.

This is why Trump and the MAGA-people absolutely hate general Milley, as he didn't hide what he thought of Emperor Trump. It isn't the only speech, but the last speech as he retired. Worth listening:


And as many have served with allies, the idea also that Trump throws away 80-years of alliances that have worked and jump to bed with a Russian dictator who hates America and will gladly want to see it's alliances break up, that will stir a lot of emotions.

I'm sure that some Americans take the Constitution and their Republic quite seriously. And aren't happy how Elon Musk wipes his ass with it.

After all, he's an old man and Vance is a relatively young man, sane, intelligent and master of the quick change. That's my fear.
Perilous times. But first, we just have to get through this brutal winter. — Vera Mont

Spring is coming. Here it's been very mild, no skiing in the south.

Should be perhaps on the Israel/Middle East-thread, but anyway...

The really good thing about Syria is that we haven't heard from Syria. It's been quite, at least until now.
Naturally as the Alawites have been in the coastal area (which didn't see fighting in the Civil War), clashes between Alawites and the Sunni majority has been the real threat here. After all, Assad governed by putting the minority in power and punished the majorities and made on purpose the relations hostile (as that Alawites would have to get protection from him). Also do note that the HTS drove to Damascus and didn't go through the region where the Alawites live. Now perhaps the to take that part?

And do note one thing. USAID aid stopped to Syria, right? Might add something to the equation.

To be honest, the only believable sources are the UN and enough credible news sources giving the same information. And actually some Israeli newspapers, as they still hold to the values of journalism. Netanyahu government obviously wants to keep Syria as a failed state, which I personally object.

Perhaps there is a real drifting apart of the EU versus the American worldview. This seems pretty black and white to me. — BitconnectCarlos

Even if I haven't looked at the issues, for starters:

Where have been for hmmm.... decades? EU has totally different views from the US on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. There's no AIPAC running the Middle Eastern policy. There's only Germany with their anxiety of having killed all those Jews. And that's basically it. But as we have been allies, naturally the differences have been pushed aside.

So when Trump leaves NATO (which Elon wants him to do and naturally Trump does what Elon says), then I'm sure that EU will be likely more like Ireland in this issue, since it doesn't have to keep in line with the US as the US isn't an ally anymore or a Superpower.

So yes, Europe and the US will likely drift separate ways in many issues as there isn't the alliance anymore between the US and Europe.

he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. — neomac

Actually, he isn't. Not in any way now. And Trump knows it, actually.

Getting your allies to participate more in the cost isn't the same thing as going against your allies, against the shared values and becoming an enabler for your adversary.

Alliances are a lot more than transactions like buying a service, just as soldiers of fortune are far less trustworthy than soldiers that have taken an oath to serve their country. NATO has been around for 76 years, so I guess there has been something to it. Yet when a country doesn't care of those values, when everything is just a transaction, a lot has gone wrong.

Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. — neomac

Are you really sure about that? Putin hates the US. Yet the Maga idiots thinks that Putin being a cultural conservative and against Gay Europe is a friend. As if Putin would break ties with China to a few years of Trump chaos? He surely knows that 80% of Americans don't trust him (Putin). His intention is to destroy US power in the World. How isn't that a danger?

But not all European are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia. — neomac

Before weren't, but now the issue is of the whole defense treaty. Don't underestimate how historical this is. If Trump withdraws the US troops and perhaps leaves a small detachment to Orban's Hungary, don't think that people have gotten the message already.

At least for Sweden and Finland it isn't so bad because we have had to have already a military capability to defend ourselves. It's actually countries like Netherlands or others that really have trusted their security policy on NATO that have to think it over now.

Our politicians might be diplomatic, but for example reading comment section in the biggest newspaper, the majority think that Trump is a traitor, a Russian agent and a Quisling. In fact, the few politicians that have said something positive about Trump are getting their asses chewed off by the public.

There is no two party system. It's just that a third party always cripples one of the main two, so there's effort on both sides to avoid fragmentation. — frank

No, what you are stating is the two party system that I'm talking about, which is actually in the minds of Americans. Oh... I have to vote the Dems/the GOP, because a voting to third party candidate would be a vote to the candidate I hate even more.

And then Americans have the idea of primaries. As if the only way for bring change would be through the existing parties. The US just like other countries have only the primary elections. What political parties do is totally dependent on the party works.

And finally the belief in all powerful POTUS. This is the problem. A Republic and a democratic system doesn't work like you elect a King/Emperor for four years, and he'll change everything. But that's what you do have now: a modern day version of emperor Nero.

Not yet. And the division is so deep, maybe never without a revolution or civil war. Which, depends on whether the present regime has time and sufficient support to entrench a dictatorship, or their egregious actions cause massive opposition. Even if the progressive forces win either kind of confrontation, it will require leader of enormous vision, courage, wisdom, persuasive powers and stamina to close the rift.
I'm not expecting a rapid or neat resolution. — Vera Mont

Neither am I. Yet Trump will his utmost to create destruction and destroy the economy and the foreign relations that the US has. In the end this will anger a lot Americans. It's just over a month of his rule and look at what chaos he has already been capable of doing.

I think NATO is done de facto... which would be a good thing for Europe in the longer term. — ChatteringMonkey

But ask yourself really, is it good that Europe and the US go separate ways? How does that make the World better?

Naturally they will go separate ways, when the US acts like a bully and with hostility and contempt against it's allies.

That doesn't really answer the question, why it would be better to prolong this war for European security, instead of using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression. If it's us next, going unprepared in a war that will be difficult to win, doesn't seem like the best option. — ChatteringMonkey

Look, Russia hasn't changed it's objectives and it wants far more territory than it has now and wants a "finladized" Ukraine, realistic option would be a puppet leader for rump Ukraine, if not the total annexation of Ukraine in the future. Either Russia gets what it wants or is put into situation where the continuation of the war has worse consequences than a cessation of hostilities. Those are the only two reasons for the war to stop.

What from above that you don't understand or doesn't answer your question?

There is no option like "Let's stop the war now because it's killing too many people." It's either of those two situations that Russia will stop the war. Anything else doesn't exist. And what Trump is doing now is enabling Russia to reach it's objectives by making it more difficult for Ukraine to defend itself. But Russia is here the attacker and it calls the shots. Now as Trump is helping Russia, Putin's dismal situation is improving rapidly thanks to Trump.

And if Russia achieves it's objectives, what are the consequences? Have you heard about the millionaire that after getting his second million dollars and said "OK, that's enough for me"? That millionaire doesn't exist, he will try to get the third million and the fourth and so on. His success is defined by the amount of millions or billions he has. With Putin it's the territory and the power Russia has in the World.

Trump already gave Afghanistan to the Taleban. That is how he treats his "allies". And it seems he is pushing for a similar resolution again with Ukraine. The next thing that likely is happening already behind closed doors, is that the US is hindering the efforts of Europe to give support to Ukraine. Europe really has to stand up here, because the Trump negotiating tactic is to surrender to have the quick peace he wants. Which is a very dangerous policy which already has had devastating effects, because the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan did enforce Putin's reasoning that he could have the three week war and conquer Ukraine.

But who can effect a major reform? — Vera Mont

There only one answer: only the people themselves.

But if the politicians can instill that polarization and hatred at each other, then the current system can system go on. If the people come together, then the change can be rapid. Anyway, Canada could have a G6 meeting in Kanaskis in June and think what to do with Trump. That would send him a signal.

It has the same consequences, which just are arrived at in a less hardhanded and obvious way. — ChatteringMonkey

No.

To have the Soviet Union or the satellite Warsaw pact states or to have a free democracy don't have the same consequences. Just as being under Russian or in an independent state is far different. Obviously you never had been in the Soviet Union or behind the iron curtain when there was one. I have, it really sucked.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies.

Unfortunately it's not going to be the worst. Trump will continue braking up the alliances that the US has. And he basically doesn't understand it.

First it is Ukraine and Zelenskyi, because he isn't making the surrender deal so Trump could get a win and the Nobel-prize he's after. It's already Denmark, because The Europeans are just in the bewilderment-phase. They are not yet even angry. The Canadians start to be in anger-phase.

Next he will likely start bashing the Europeans and Canadians.

Now I might be wrong, but good luck if the US stays in NATO until and after the next Summit in June 2025 in Hague. As that's many months from now, who the fuck knows what has happened between now and then.

I don't think so because the US largely decides for NATO-members in practice. — ChatteringMonkey

You think so?
We the pitiful paracites, that ought to pay...

And how did that go with Obama and his red-line in the sand? Tell me.

If you believe that NATO is similar to the Warsaw Pact, then you are quite ignorant.

Aside from the question of who is to blame for what, what do you think we should do when the US leaves the war? What are we hoping to accomplish with continuing the war? — ChatteringMonkey

Number 1: DON'T BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT FROM TRUMP

Putin doesn't want peace. What Putin will accept now is surrender. Or a deal that put's Ukraine in such a difficult position that it cannot defend itself if Putin rearms and then attacks again. Only peace terms that Putin cannot win on the battlefield is interesting to him. What Putin has said is that he is interested in normalizing the ties with the US and that's it. No negotiations have even started. The only the thing what has happened is that Trump is amplifying Kremlin propaganda, attacking Ukraine and giving every card away.

Yet the truth Russia will only negotiate if continuing the war can be more risky. That's the thing what history has told us and that's that the peace deals that my country has made with Russia/Soviet Union tells us:

In 1939-1940 Finland with a population of 3,7 million faced over a country with well over 170 million people. Stalin didn't end the war because Finns put up a defense. Stalin chose to negotiate with the "illegal Capitalist Finnish government" because there was the possibility of France and United Kingdom coming to the side of Finland. Stalin, even then in 1940, thought that the West (even Germany) could then ally against him.

In 1944 Stalin chose again peace with Finland because his assault against Finland in the summer had stopped and was out of steam, we even had made a successful counterattack and we Finns still had behind us our main defensive line, the Salpa Line. The Allies had already broken through from Normandy and rushing towards Berlin. Soviet Union had launched it's successful Operation Bagration and the last thing Stalin had in mind was to put more forces on a separate not so strategic front and perhaps lose the contest to take Berlin.

The fact is this: True peace, or even a cease-fire, can be dealt from a position of strength. Of course, you can always surrender. If the Ukrainians want to surrender, nobody cannot do anything about that. If they want to defend their country, we should assist them. It's us next if they fall.

. And hope a savvy Dem leadership reaches out to them though non-official channels. For sure, there will be a thriving black market back and forth, so lines of communication will still be open. — Vera Mont

I think the Americans could be better served by a total reform of the two party system. Centrist Democrats and actual conservatives, not the MAGA-church, could find themselves and simply demand justice, respect of the Constitution and the end of oligarch rule. Fight against the robber barons, act II.

And sure reality is allways more complex, it's just a model of how these situations tend to evolve, and can help us to think about these situations in more long term strategic ways. — ChatteringMonkey

Models are valuable only if they truly depict reality.

Yet I would emphasize that taking the "minor states" only as either proxies or allies of Greater powers, which then can be erased from the equation, is wrong and creates huge, dramatic mistakes. When you go through the objectives and agenda of the regional players, even the smaller ones, you can create a functioning and effective policy, that actually will work. Otherwise, it will sooner or later be a fiasco.

First think of Vietnam.

The Domino Theory just put Vietnam, China and the Soviet bloc all together. Just this Red communism that would collapse country after country like falling dominoes. Well, even the Commies in fact they weren't so together, which can be seen from the Chinese-Vietnamese border war fought only few years after the South was defeated and the country unified. And then it was the Vietnamese who intervened in Cambodia and fought of the Khmer Rouge. But hey, they are all just a bunch of commies unified through their ideology!!!

Then there's Afghanistan.

As I've said, Pakistan had an absolutely crucial role in war in Afghanistan. After all, the Taleban had been their proxy. And Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends: it gave officially support to the "War on Terror" and also aided the Taleban finally to it's victory. And it's real existential threat that it looks at is India, and why it wants to dominate Afghanistan. But how did the Americans approach the war? For them they fought the Taleban because "otherwise Afghanistan would be a safe haven for terrorists to attack Continental US." That was the line given and parroted by everybody as it was the line given to the domestic audience. But that was then really what the policy came to. Absolutely no thought given here to the power structure of the region. And that's why the US kicked out from all of Central Asia, not just Afghanistan.

Similar thing is happening here when Trump wanting to get good relations with Russia is sacrificing Ukraine and trying his best to give the country on a silver platter to his friend, that "he has been through hell", will continue to chip away the ties that have been the foundation for the largest alliance ever.

Trump’s communicative approach in foreign politics is coherent with his aggressive style in domestic politics. And he’s aversion toward to the Europeans is not just resentful because he sees Europeans as materially parasitising the US but also due to an ideological gap that aligns Europeans (mostly the EU) with Democrats and the Woke culture. — neomac

I agree. But Trump really doesn't understand that this isn't entertainment. It really isn't "professional wrestling" that is a show. And the culture war stuff? Fuck that bullshit! We are talking about of war and peace, of having good relations or seeing each other.

Voicing moral outrage to somehow induce the US to be more complacent toward the US can backfire to the extent Trump could use it once more against Europeans (as Zelensky's appeal to common goals and solidarity backfired against Zelensky in the Oval Office). — neomac

For Trump it's just "great Television". Otherwise he is a total coward.Just look at how he is flailing with Canada. He immediately backs down if OH!... the stock market goes down. Oh no!!! Heck, Mexico even didn't have the time to react, only said to react on Sunday (tomorrow), and weak dick bully Trump had already backed down.

Trump can be handled by a) the US economy going down and b) his base getting angry at him. Luckily and thanks only to Trump, you are now facing a recession.

When it's about the sovereignty of nation states and issue of war... who gives a fuck about the stock market? It's a minor detail. People don't give a fuck about losing half of their savings, if the issue is about war or peace, their own lives and their countrymen's lives at stake. This isn't anymore about Ukraine, it's all about the Transatlantic alliance. Only the truly blind and the totally ignorant won't see this. But that is what is at stake.

American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. — neomac

No, it's not logical to break down the globalization that empowerd the US and made it to be prosperous. You can spend without any limits because the US has been a reserve currency, which IS A POLITICAL decision your allies have accepted, not an economic decision or a thing that has emerged just from the free market. Please let that sink in. The World has gone on for thousands of years without a "reserve currency" and can do that again. It's plain an simple: companies participating in foreign trade can use a basket of currencies and don't have to rely on a "reserve currency". Why should let's say Italy and Saudi-Arabia use dollars for oil trade. There is absolutely no reason for this ...other than the US had provided security guarantees for both countries.

And then just think of the immediate consequence of this rift between the US and Europe. What will emerge as an obvious result is strategic autonomy, a thing that France has promoted. Sure, France has been an ally of the US, fought in it's wars, yet has not depended on US arms exports. And that makes total sense, because I can easily imagine the rest of Europe being in situation as Ukraine is with the US when Trump acts like he does. If you really think good relations are gotten with bullying and threats, then think again.

[/

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. — neomac

And I repeat my line and my question to you: Trump didn't make us to spend more in defense. Putin did. Putin is a threat to Europe. Now you are siding with Putin. What does that make the US for us?

So why be friendly with Russia, a basket case of a country with huge problems, which is run by a dictator and could have it's own revolution, and then push away and anger an union of 500 million people that have thought of America and Americans as friends that share the same values? Why make us the adversary? That's what Trump is doing. It doesn't make any sense.

If Trump wants that, OK. The US won't be a superpower anymore. It will loose it's allies.

Indeed. The only viable strategy for democratic nations right now is to work around the US. Withhold intelligence, reconfigure trade agreements among themselves, shutting the US out whenever possible, exclude the Trump regime from discussions, negotiations and diplomatic endeavours. It won't be easy... but it may not have to be carried on for too long: once the Trumpites are kicked out, relations can resume. — Vera Mont

This actually is the reality. How you kick out the MAGA lunatics will be the question, because as you can see the Trump recession is already here, even if Trump is waivering with the tariff-destruction. WIll it happen through elections, demonstrations, a revolution or civil war. Because with Trump those last horrible scenarios aren't just imagination for Hollywood-movies, but theoretically totally possible outcomes.

Perhaps the way here is just to keep the door open for the US to join it's allies once this mental breakdown called the Trump administration is over. Perhaps how France under DeGaulle went away from the alliance in the 1960's to join later back would give us an example of how to deal with the Trumpian tantrum.

Unfortunately I think it won't go so diplomatically. Once Trump really understands what is happening, it's not only Denmark that will be badmouthed to the MAGA crowd. And naturally Russia as the enemy of the US will try it's best to make the rift even bigger.

This is the most irritating fact with these "experts", when they leave totally away the naked imperialist ambitions out, because that is the basic reason just why these countries insisted in joining NATO. The narrative of the US just going and picking on Russia is biased and simply wrong.

In fact the real criticism against NATO shouldn't have been the typical anti-Americanism, but the fact that the US had seem to lost the reasoning just why NATO was so successful, because European countries genuinely loved it. Comparing to CENTO and SEATO, nothing of the kind of synergy happened between members states in those historical treaty organizations. Above all, the success in creating a team from independent nations is the true accomplishment in NATO.

As we have this incredible situation where the US president is in love with Putin and has become the enabler of Russian aggression and is ruining the position of the United States, we clearly see what the result is. Once the US leaves, then the need for a new security system is evident.

Now some argue that Russia isn't a threat to Europe because it hasn't been able to defeat Ukraine. Well, earlier the same people were saying was that Russia couldn't fight itself out of a brown paper bag when it didn't achieve success in the first Chechen war. And now with the American president supporting Russia, Russia is really an existential threat to Europe. With the actions that Trump has now taken, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would start limit European weapon deliveries to Ukraine.

And we see the outcome here: Europeans will make an effort to defense. Even if it's not declared by everybody, the French idea of strategic autonomy has finally won. People are in denial if they think that the Trump administration can be trusted to fall in line if a NATO member feels threatened and calls for article 5. Only few years earlier this was a pipe dream, but thanks to Trump, it isn't.

Just as by invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin put Finland and Sweden to join NATO, now in 2025 Trump's actions have put the European NATO members plus Canada to think about a world without the US seriously. The question is, that once Europe does get it's act together, why would then afterwards listen to the whims and the rants of the US president later.

Trump being totally ignorant of Article 5 having already been implemented. And they did come to fight in Afghanistan. Eagerly, actually, to show the support for the US. In fact, when Biden bugged out of Afghanistan, there were far more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US forces.



Perhaps Trump is hinting that he will "walk away from NATO as they don't pay" as nobody is paying the 5% of GDP, including the US. Or actually I think a Baltic country is already paying so much and Poland will likely spend on defense soon as much. But of course reality or the facts don't matter. It's a figleaf like the absurd Fentanol-line was for the Canadian tariffs.

I think that Trump will do what Elon and Vladimir Putin will want: He will walk away from NATO because "they don't pay".

Never have I seen a nation dismantling itself as now. And even if the tariffs are ended, the instability and the uncertainty will create the Trump recession. And in the end there will be the Constitutional crisis.

I think the outcome is that the US can possibly even have it's own second revolution... or civil war. This guy isn't Ceaser. He really is more like Nero. An entertainment guy also.

Yep. Those are the attitudes of the present. And I'm sure that Claude Malhuret and the Canadian politicians aren't going to be alone with their truthful and realistic views on Trump.

I haven't come across any examples of Trump criticizing Putin. Anyone? — jorndoe

Never.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also the hawkish Bolton was among such analysts as much as part of Trump’s advisors in his first mandate: — neomac

Thanks for the references!

But do notice the difference here. One thing is to ask, especially behind closed doors, about something like this (as Bolton states). Another thing is to declare it openly, like Trump. Actually John Bolton explains it well:

And there are other possibilities that occurred to me: commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico. Joint condominium with Denmark. Independence but with a Compact of Free Association with the United States like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

There are a lot of possibilities. But they never got anywhere, because Trump talked about everything publicly, and the whole thing blew up.

When actually many Greenlanders do want independence, and it's just 50 000 people, what Bolton here is actually saying something that Danes could perhaps accept without losing face.

Yet Trump wants to annex more territory into the US. His agenda is to increase the territory of the US to cover all of the North of the American continent with the large island next to it. And this is the proposed with a sublte manner of asking a man if his wife can be raped.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines: — neomac

OK, I do understand where you are going. And I'm just trying to say that this is absolutely loony.

Autocratic regimes of Russia and China aren't more prosperous than us. We do like our democracy and our justice state. We are willing to fight for it. The "populists" we have do abide with laws and parliamentarism and actually support Ukraine.

But let's go over these points you made:

* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada. — neomac

Yeah, but notice what has happened when Russia made those territorial gains and didn't achieve it's goals of conquering Ukraine in three weeks. Russia is an existential threat to Europe. As von der Leyen said: "A clear and present danger". And that's why Europe is uniting in a historic arms race to put nearly everything and the kitchen sink into defense. That's why countries like Canada, Norway, UK are joining up with EU states as the threat is obvious. This is basically the only way that you can get the 27 nations of the EU plus few that are only in NATO to unite. And once they have built up their defense, why would they then listen to anything that the bully US will say?

And do notice that China hasn't at least yet started military action against Taiwan.

Now, why the fuck would you want the same type of reaction against yourself? Really, nobody has answered here what is the reasoning behind alienating your allies and bowing down in front of your enemies? The only one's agenda that this serves is Russia, as it wants to destroy the power of the US.

As been said, Italy is a larger economy than Russia. Russia is approaching one million dead and wounded in this war and has lost huge quantities of equipment. Why is this country put then on a pedestal?

It's just absolutely crazy that when you use Occam's razors, you do end up with the whims of an old vindictive narcissist as the answer.

* * *
And anyway, if scolding and badmouthing Zelensky, demanding a huge minerals deal without giving any security guarantees, cutting all aid and intel is bad... Perhaps it could be even worse:



Yet perhaps a grain of salt should be used here. The US has a habit of trying to influence things in Ukraine, but it doesn't control them. This is where some swalloy the Russian propaganda too easily: the Ukrainian revolutions, which there have been many, haven't been some astro-turf events machinated by the US. They have been popular revolutions, where usually the US have tried to influence the events. And so will here too happen. Ukrainian resolve to defend their country isn't made up of just one man. And the other Ukrainian politicians mentioned here likely won't be puppets either.

Why did we let these guys put their military bases on our land? Time to do self-criticism. — javi2541997

Great Powers can have totally different policies in totally different regions and with different countries. This is why many have this problem especially with the US as it's actions in it's backyard, in Central America and then in Western Europe or with Israel has been quite different. And this is totally similar with Russia and China. Russia can be outright hostile and murderous in it's "Near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia, yet it's likely very cordial and friendly to India or Brazil. And this is why many traditional leftists who have been against the US have been irritated of my views, if I have mentioned something positive of the previous actions of the US.

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO was a voluntary defense treaty, not an instrument of subjugation. The Warsaw Pact did achieve it's mission in 1956 in Hungary and especially in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was most successful Soviet military operation since Operation Bagration in 1944. It genuinely were the former Warsaw pact states in Eastern Europe that wanted themselves NATO protection. They were the most active in this. And in the case of Sweden and Finland, there is no other reason than Putin himself. Hence the pro-Russian commentators never talk about Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Above all, European countries really loved the system of keeping the Russians out, the US in and Germany lame.

What Americans true hubris is that these new "realpolitik" players that see Europe as weak as the EU is made up of 27 states and the largest of them, Germany, is a militarily tiny, is to see the continent as a liberal pushover. Because outside threat can make Europeans to come together, just like the Greek states came together with a unified threat of the Persian empire. For Europe, Putin is really a threat. If Trump goes to bed with Putin and does Putin's bidding, how would that logically change the situation? What is the threat now?

With Trump, it has changed. Just look at how the relationship has changed with Canada. It's really worth wile reading, and then reading again what Justin Trudeau, the exiting Canadian prime minister said:

Trudeau accused the US president of planning "a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us".

"That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state," he told reporters on Tuesday.

"This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners."

You think that is just "trade war rhetoric"? No, that above accusation you basically hurl at your enemy. Not a competitor, not an adversary, but to an enemy that threatens you. Only an enemy would have this kind of objective. And the way things are going, I think that in the future European politicians will start to sound like their Canadian counterparts.

That Trump has gone to the side of Russia, that JD Vance tells us that Russia isn't a threat to us, but some culture war issue "freedom of speach" is and Trump hints at possibly using force to get Greenland from Denmark have all crossed a line. Because the NATO members aren't Warsaw Pact members, so this has real consequences.

I understand why you Finns are worried; now Trump is fond of a threat to your nation. But let's not forget that he is also very friendly with Muhammad (the dictator of Morocco). What would happen if that mad lad decided to attack Ceuta and Melilla? Will Trump support him? Will Trump threaten Sanchez and Spain as he did with Zelensky and Ukraine? — javi2541997

This is our weak spot and this is why we seem to be so weak to Americans. Because even if I know Ceuta and Melilla, I'm sure that many Finns wouldn't know that these cities are in Africa. And there would be plenty of intellectuals that start talking about Spanish colonialism and the atrocities done in the Rif war.

We've already talked about the totally different security situation that European countries find themselves. I think the whims of the King of Morocco isn't your biggest threat, what if Morocco would collapse to have a civil war like Algeria or Syria? What if on the other side of the city limits (and the border zone) of Ceuta and Melilla you can see the flags of Islamic state of the Maghreb? Those people could declare of the divine mission to retake the lost lands of the Moors back.

The error here is to think that Finns would be indifferent if this happens. If the Finnish leadership tells us clearly just how the perilous the situation is for Spain, then there could be the response. It is simply a case of our leaders understanding that we are in the same boat and we cannot turn a blind eye to others security problems. That makes all security arrangement we have weak.

In the next decades, Europe has to think more about itself! — javi2541997

I would disagree.

The time is now. Or actually after last Friday week ago. And they are already thinking. Thanks to Trump, the World has changed already. The change is here and now.