It seems it was a normal mission, hence Elon didn't get his additional mission:

The Crew-10 mission is part of a normal crew rotation happening at an unusual time for NASA's ISS operations - rather than a dedicated mission to retrieve Wilmore and Williams, who will return to Earth as late additions to NASA's Crew-9 crew. Musk says SpaceX had offered a dedicated Dragon mission for the pair last year as NASA mulled ways to bring the two back to Earth. But NASA officials have said the two astronauts have had to remain on the ISS to maintain adequate staffing levels, and that it did not have the budget or the operational need to send a dedicated rescue spacecraft.
Having seen their mission turn into a normal NASA rotation to the ISS, Wilmore and Williams have been doing scientific research and conducting routine maintenance with the other five astronauts.
Williams told reporters earlier this month that she was looking forward to returning home to see her two dogs and family. "It's been a roller coaster for them, probably a little bit more so than for us," she said.

The bigger question here is what happens after ISS to human spaceflight.

I’m still curious, though, why have an EU parliament if you don’t want them to have any oversight? — NOS4A2

It has oversight of the European Union itself and makes EU legislation. So you have these members of European Parliament, who focus on what the Council and the EU institution itself do. From their website:

The Parliament acts as a co-legislator, sharing with the Council the power to adopt and amend legislative proposals and to decide on the EU budget. It also supervises the work of the Commission and other EU bodies and cooperates with national parliaments of EU countries to get their input.

Defense is actually more a question of national budgets and national decisions how to improve the armed forces etc.

I actually don't want that the Finnish Parliament wouldn't have the power to make laws in Finland, that everything would be decided by the EU Parliament. This would be catastrophic. Then I would agree with the view that Finland (and other member states) wouldn't be anymore sovereign states. As I've said, it's an union, that basically is a confederacy made up of independent countries. That's why it always looks so weak.

You’re thinking like Biden now. — NOS4A2

Changing the space flight program by adding missions may be beneficial to SpaceX, but is it to the taxpayer less costly? That's the question.

Did they add a mission? I don't know, actually. (Now I'm the ignorant here)

. That means Biden just left them up there. Evil. — NOS4A2

ISS is manned and can have astronauts there, even longer. I think this was just basically a cost cutting decision not to create a new flight, but just follow the time table, because nobody needed an evacuation.

And is cost cutting evil? Ask your DOGE.

I could care less, to be honest. — NOS4A2

I've noticed.

I agree. — NOS4A2

Great! That's positive that we agree on something.

Ok, so when we understand that the reserve currency is a political decision and the reason for this political decision are the alliances that the US has had, why then brake these alliances?

The obvious question here is for the EU countries to think: "Wait a minute, why do we pay for our oil and liquefied natural gas in dollars, that doesn't come from the US? Shouldn't we pay in euro?" This would help the euro bond market, because people would need euros. And if Europe has this row with Russia, it doesn't have that with Brazil, India, South Africa and China. Those countries would do happily also without having to have US dollars for trade that isn't with the US.

Now is the time to fan the flames of discontent! — BC

Yep. Trump is continuing to pour fuel on the flames, so the task ought to be easy.

Elon's fortune is of this ilk. — Banno

Basically the is Tesla stock would fall -50% from today, when it has already fallen -50% from it's high (meaning a -75% fall in total), it still would be high priced. Other car manufacturers aren't facing this kind of negativity.

Perhaps Elon should cut it loose and just have SpaceX and government contracts.

It's not a counterargument. I agree that not much else is happening than old man Bernie getting crowds to listen to him.

How old was Bernie?

3) It shouldn't be an alliance against Russia, because all of the reasons I have been harping on about in previous posts. — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, for this I have to make some comments.

Defense treaties aren't established when is there is no threat. And alliance isn't formed that then goes look for possible adversaries. That's the way it never happens. There already has to be a real reason.

Secondly,

As Trump has repeatedly question the sovereignty of Canada, the Canadian-US border and made hinted even to use military force to annex Greenland from Denmark. Why wouldn't the US the be then as hostile or even more hostile than Russia?

The reason is that all above is basically statements of Trump, who says a lot of things. Yet the US military isn't training in large scale exercises to invade Canada. US military personnel aren't talking about annexing Canada. US television isn't having television shows how Canada or Greenland would be invaded. The US isn't jamming Canadian GPS system or it's receivers. The US doesn't see that it's in a proxy war with Canada. And The US hasn't declared Canada to be it's enemy.

That's the difference. All of the above is actually the hostility that Russia shows to it's Western neighbors.

The actions being taken by the present administration are so detrimental to the well-being of citizens that people want to talk about it. It does not mean that these people will suddenly want a form of polity that Sanders has championed during his career. — Paine

Bernie could easily go to talk to the MAGA crowd. The rednecks, the hicks, and so on in the fly-over country where they have voted for Trump.

That’s not what the head of the European People's Party said. I guess he knows very little about the EU, according to ssu. — NOS4A2

Do you understand the difference and the different roles of the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of each member state? And when it come to national defense, it's the member states that decide this. Ursula can simply talk about EU budgeting agreements etc. Another thing is what the countries actually do.

Let’s see what happens to Europe when the reserve currency is the Yuan. — NOS4A2

You know that the USD being a reserve currency was a political decision made in Bretton Woods. There's no "natural" reserve currency. The most natural things is to have it like it has been for hundreds if not a few thousand years: you have different currencies and if you are handling international trade, then have a basket of currencies.

The EU elites are using emergency powers to circumvent parliament in order to push forward with their rearmament. — NOS4A2

This just shows how little you know of Europe.

The European Parliament isn't here important. It's the national Parliaments, because the decisions are rearmament is in the end made at the national level. The European Parliament is an OK talking arena that focuses on what the Commission and the EU bureaucracy is doing and what EU laws are made. That's fine, but this is actually a country-level issue.

It’s interesting to watch what a parasite does when it finds itself without its host. — NOS4A2

Yeah, let's see what happens to Americans when the dollar isn't anymore the reserve currency and the World isn't their host anymore.

I'm in my country I am a conservative. I've voted the conservative party, I support them, I've never voted or supported the social democrats. Still, I think they are reasonable people who do love also this country and can be negotiated with. They won't destroy my country. That's democracy.

In the US, I'd naturally hope a centrist democrat would take over the Democratic party and kick the elderly out of the ruling positions. Or conservatives would take back the Republican party from the MAGA Church after the American Nero has burnt Rome.

But heck, I'm just a puny foreigner. Hence the likely counter movement against Trump's MAGA Church and the oligarchy will come from the left. And as @Paine said, one likely person might be Bernie.

Perhaps Bernie should try get Trump and the MAGA-talking heads to get raving mad. And what better way to do it is to be openly declaring what he is, a social democrat, sorry, a democratic socialist. There's nothing to being a social democrat. Keir Starmer, Tony Blair, Miterrand, all basically are social democrats. But in the US media discourse, that's something that makes Republicans and likely the MAGA media to see red and be really, really angry. The political pundits would laugh at it. Not in the US, the GOP can eat them for breakfast. Yet I think it's important to do something that gets things up from the malaise that the democrat party is now in. Hillary stating that Trump supporters were "deplorables" was the highest moment for MAGA, because that kind of condescending attitude energizes a political movement. Especially made up of from people that think they have not been heard, that the system isn't working for them. Yet simply going against the oligarchs and the corruption would be the way here forward and then to talk how badly things are going.



Move to the right creates a countermove to the left. And someone like Bernie Sanders would still be in the "normal" range of politics. Bernie isn't a Hugo Chavez. The worst possible outcome after Trump would be a leftist populist like Chavez who wouldn't value democracy, actually. Populist are always bad, because they start from the juxtaposition of them being for the people and others being the enemy of the people. Not actually a position that is healthy for a democracy.

Canada was already imposing tariffs on us so I believe Trump's tariffs were retaliatory. — BitconnectCarlos

No, NOBODY HAD TARIFFS against you like idiot Trump has now done.

This Tariff bullshit is ALL OF TRUMP'S DOING. Nobody was so foolish as Trump to think that tariffs would bring prosperity. He had to invent this would be an "emergency", because of the fentanol from Canada, which was a tiny fraction compared to what comes from Mexico, one fucking suitcase.

And just think for example of aluminium. It's basic a metal done with electricity and when producing . Well, Canada has ample amounts of hydroelectricity production, hence it's naturally cheaper to produce aluminium in Canada and the country now produces three times more aluminium than the US.

So now you have this epic wisdom of Trump that let's make everything cost more, so there would sprout more domestic production. Well, what you will be having is just paying the high fucking cost that hopefully then is met by American production that totally is dependent on the trade barriers, because it cannot compete in the global arena. That is just simply foolish!

International trade creates prosperity. Mercantilism, basically what Trump is after, doesn't work so well.

Please, wake up!

↪BitconnectCarlos, you believe so? — jorndoe

I hope he doesn't believe so. But.... I guess you are right.

but I do love what Trump is doing here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, so you love also the trade war and the tariffs you'll pay?
Not caring so much about the separation of powers in a republic?

Just asking.

Exactly.

But seriously, even if Trump is a devoted ally of Israel, his delusional ideas don't actually help Israel. And imagine if Trump follows Elon's advice of getting the US out of NATO and the UN. How friendly place will the UN be for Israel without the US and with an Europe alienated from the US?

If there are no consequences, then that's proof the US is a fundamentally corrupt state. Even if we say so, it's not before it's obvious that the people might do something about it. — Christoffer

Never underestimate the strength of denial. People won't admit that they made any errors themselves. So let this all just sink in. Have Americans feel it in their wallet or purse when they go buy food or something else. Let the economy tank as it's doing.

Have you noticed anybody defending Trump's annexations here? Is there a broad movement for all of this? Entanglement in foreign wars was what the issue that the MAGA people hated. So does then a war Mexico, Panama even Greenland go so well with that crowd? Or even with Canada? What threat does Canada be for the US? Nothing.

Yes I totally agree with you about this, this is why I would give back a lot of what the Commission does now back to the countries... because they have lost a lot of their sovereignity to the EU, and are hampered in their ability to implement effective policies to deal with problems in their country. — ChatteringMonkey

Note that the sovereign countries have understood the necessity for integration and for their to be system of having a Commission. They have given some sovereignty over to the EU, but notice that in the end they could take it back (and make a crisis in EU).

I'm talking mostly only about a more permanent centralisation of defence and military because that makes sense in the world we are seeming to be heading to. And really, in practice sovereignity in foreign policy and defence is allready mostly dead letter now because a lot of it is determined by NATO. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, NATO gives a good, realistic, concept to follow here. Only without the US. So you have to have that command structures. In fact, this can happen inside NATO in the way that European NATO members and Canada just start assuming that the US isn't there and start having exercises without the US.

I think we have to understand that the EU is truly an union of sovereign states, which will continue to be sovereign states.

I remember years ago an EU political advisor stating the obvious. One cannot erase the national identity of the people, one can only create a higher level identity that joins the people. Yet this is an absolutely enormous task to do, having a flag and anthem simply won't do. The creation of people being British shows that this is possible, the example of being an Yugoslav or a Soviet shows this can utterly fail.

What is essential to sovereign nation states is the shared collective feeling about them. Patriotism, the love of your country. Love isn't something that you rationally and logically conclude.

Many Finns get tears in their eyes when the national anthem is played and the Finnish flag is raised. It's not because of the Finnish having paying a price, it's what they have experienced, what their own family, their grandparents and now great grandparents went through to keep the country independent. That's the thing that ties history to oneself and makes it personal. Nothing of this kind of happens when we have the EU flag and the nice peace from Beethoven is played. Here the EU has failed and is failing. It could do a lot more.

The "man of peace" is wanting the Pentagon (or more accurately SOUTHCOM) to draw plans on taking Panama. I guess with this madman, it wasn't enough that the company taking care of harbours became an American company.

(March 13th, 2025) President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon to prepare plans for carrying out his threat to "take back" the Panama Canal, including by military force if needed, two U.S. officials familiar with the situation told NBC News Thursday.

According to the outlet, the officials said that U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is drawing up potential plans that run the gamut from working more closely with Panama's military to a less likely scenario in which U.S. troops invade the country and take the canal by force. They also said that SOUTHCOM commander Adm. Alvin Holsey has presented draft strategies to be reviewed by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is scheduled to visit Panama next month.

The officials explained that the likelihood of a U.S invasion depended on the level of cooperation shown by the Panamanian military.

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out use of military force to seize control of the vital U.S.-built waterway, as well as Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

Last week during his joint address to Congress, Trump proclaimed that "to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal," but his administration has not clarified precisely what "reclaiming" entails.

The Republican president says the U.S. needs to retake control of the Panama Canal to enhance "economic security," and has falsely claimed that the waterway is "operated by China."

Of the wars that Trump is lusting to have, this is the second likeliest war that Trump will have. He definitely wants the war against the Mexican cartel with armed drones swirling there... at some time. When he remembers that.

You don't invent yourself these issues. Mandatory Palestine existed and then people there were called Palestinians. And once Isreal was formed, these ex-Palestinians became Israelis. So easy.

The point I wanted to make is that if liberal democracy and the values that come with that, are very difficult to implement in these countries, maybe we should be a little bit more understanding of that fact that it isn't feasible for them to adhere to all of those values we have declared as universal. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the reasoning here is that the democratic republic, the needed functioning institutions, are difficult, but not unobtainable. India has been a democracy. Many Third World countries have been democracies and, at least, try to be democracies. We can see just how long that takes, especially with the example of South Korea. It has finally gotten to be a democracy, it's prosperous. And then, the leader tried an auto-coup.

In fact comes to my mind a very prosperous and large advanced country, that tries to be a democracy, but seems to have problems with this.... :snicker:

Yes for sure I don't want empire either, we should build in enough checks and balances to prevent that. — ChatteringMonkey

One reason in that Europe is so diverse. Spain and Finland are different, just as Greece and Ireland. That makes the EU to function like an Empire extremely different. There is no leading country, as there would have been if either Napoleon or Hitler had succeeded. And how long those Empires would have lasted? I'm not sure.

So why I think this could work, i.e. having a more centralised defence and foreign policy, is 1) it would enable us to defend Europes interests better on the world stage, which would be a net benefit for all countries and 2) it would prevent European countries from fighting among each other. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, there is now one unifying reason: Donald Trump.

If the US would, just like Obama and Biden and the presidents before them, stand with Europe, Russia wouldn't pose a threat. Now when Trump is in Putin's pocket, Russia is an existential threat. Add there the trade war. Add there the territorial annexation agende of Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

True unification usually happens with an outside threat. That is there now.

The term is also essentially meaningless these days. Anyone living in historical Palestine is technically a Palestinian. — BitconnectCarlos

Was a Palestinian. But then, you know, some people there formed Israel and those people are called Israelis.

I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes. — Echarmion

We surely will here after Trump talks more to his friend, Vladimir, how understandable Putin's line is and how much Putin and Trump want peace. But it's that damn warmongering Zelenskyi!!!

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for a western democracy to give something. Yay for free stuff. — Benkei

I would correct that:

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for Trump to bully and pressure to give it over to Russia. Because this is "realpolitik". Yay for free stuff.

Canada as much as Ukraine may respond to imperialist aggressions the way they see fit, but then they have also to be ready to pay the consequences. If there are no peace agreements, then they have to fight it out. Besides, given the issues I’ve spoken about: the burden of overstretch and the pivot to Asia, I find it unlikely the US will start a conventional war with Canada to occupy and annex it as Russia did with Ukraine. — neomac

And that's why Canada can see the total bluff of Trump. If the US might be so delusional to occupy Greenland and it's 50 000 inhabitants, then face the consequences. But this Canada thing is demented, delusional and silly. If there are any Americans here, just ask them how many American soldiers they are willing to have killed for Canada and how many Canadians they want to be killed in the process. How much better would they feel about their country? Because that's what you would need to do. They simply aren't given their land without a fight, and especially a non-military fight. So a war of invasion? Would the American troops go through with this kind of nonsense? I'm sure that Trump wouldn't get it through Congress.

But here's some people actually talking about these loony ideas of Trump:


If people have been against the Vietnam war or something... how much would they be against this. With a Trump recession and Trump invading Canada... yeah, I could see a civil war in the US.

Anyway, You can already see what this insane bullshit from Trump is leading the US. There's a global recession starting and the dollar is weakening. Usually in times when there is fear of recession, the stock market sinks and the dollar goes up as people put into safety their investments. Now the dollar is sinking. And that is new.

And those thinking that this isn't because of the political situation, they are wrong. The whole status of the US dollar being a reserve currency was a political decision. And when Nixon ended the Gold standard, the dollar continued it's role because oil was sold in dollars.

Where's the flight to safety?

No they just have another order of values. They think stability comes before rights, which I would argue makes some sense — ChatteringMonkey

I think that everybody thinks so. Without stability or in anarchy, the first "value" is simply one's own safety. This has been seen so many times. If the government stops working, then the first thing that happens is that people in the society take on the mission on what the police has had. Either it's by armed militias or gangs, or then local politicians become warlords. Societies with strong social cohesion simply wouldn't have their governments become incapacitated. The social cohesion means that people won't turn to arms.

Liberal democracy isn't allways something that works because of the circumstances some countries find themselves in... just look at all the failed attempts of the west to install these kind of regimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and then you get violent anarchy like in Irak for instance, or Lybia, or Syria. — ChatteringMonkey

In the case of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the road to a liberal democracy is extremely hard, and if there are enough warlords or armed ethnic groups that want their own independence or do not want liberal democracy, it simply won't work. And with outside powers financing the different groups the outcome is that liberal democracy isn't happening.

The US attempt in Iraq makes this evident, you cannot have a functioning liberal democracy if you don't have political resolution of the of power-sharing between the Sunni's and Shia's or what to do when the aim of the Kurds is independence. Just assuming to have elections and those kind of issue will be solved is naive and basically foolish. George Bush the older understood this and took the advice of his Arab allies and didn't continue into Baghdad after liberating Kuwait.

You can never devellop a consistent longer term strategy like that I think, which is what all other blocs are doing... you will end up being a leaf in the wind on the geopolitical stage. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't want the EU to be an Empire. It can have a defense, but not be offensive. There's always going to be some Hungary around, but also so many the sovereign states won't start something extremely stupid. At least some countries will come to the conclusion that "this would be stupid".

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.