The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire. — frank

And do you think that starting a trade war, which likely ends up in a global downturn, will help that?

Do you think raising the prices of consumer products will help that? How does it help you when Canada understands that it has to turn away from US trade and start trading more with other countries, like with the EU and have stronger economic ties with the union? Tell me, how does that help you?

Your economy isn't in it's infancy, those American corporations have themselves pushed the factories into China, just like Elon has in China. Now thinking that tariffs will help you, when they clearly won't (just look at what similar thinking in the 1930's ended up with).

That is America. — frank

You don't want to have a welfare state, you don't want universal health care or free education. You could easily have that, but you do not want it. You want to give tax breaks to the rich and believe that the best thing is not only to man the highest positions in the administration with billionaires, but to give unchecked power to the richest man in the World. That's the United States Americans seem to want and vote for. Because obviously, for some reason you buy the argument that is this rule by the rich or then everything else is Venezuela type socialism.

It's all that you are doing yourself by your own choosing. And loosing that leadership role won't make it anymore easier. Actually it's the American defense companies that will be hurt when Europe starts focusing on it's own military industry.

In fact, you can both have a strong military and a welfare state and people be prosperous. But that means that the rich do have to pay taxes. Sweden during the Cold War is actually a great example of this: a rather small country could have it's own military industrial complex capable of building top of the line fighters, submarines and even building an own nuclear weapon. And also creating that welfare state.

The thing that either it's guns or butter is the wrong idea.

AG Bondi claimed on Fox News that we might see some Jeffry Epstein info today. I suspect it’s a huge bust, and anything pertaining to who else might have been involved will or has gone missing, but who knows? — NOS4A2

LOL!!! :lol:

Well, this administration will SURELY erase every connection that Trump had with Epstein, who "liked girls on the young side" as Trump called it.

(Of course, what is cut out in this video are the young girls dancing that Trump is commenting to Epstein)



* * *

Then back to Trump being Trump, as usual...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XkgoXUyGlHM

The US has a giant nuclear arsenal with the ability to deploy them with ICBMs, medium range missiles, submarines, and Air Force bombers. Why does the US need NATO? I'm asking. — frank

You do know that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US has, btw.

Why do you need NATO?

Let's see.

1) You could do inflict most crushing military victory when you created an alliance and got UN support when George Bush formed a huge alliance and liberated Kuwait. But that was during the time when the US gave a thought to building alliances as it had had to anticipate always the reactions of the Soviet Union. There was a lot of support from NATO countries, one British division and one French division alongside a large amount of aircraft and naval vessels. It all adds up. Just with few men killed, you basically destroyed one of the largest armies in the World, which was on the cusp of truly getting a nuclear deterrent. And you understood not to go further than the liberation of Kuwait (as back then you valued thei views of your allies).

2) You needed NATO in Afghanistan. In the end there were more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US troops.

3) You needed NATO Countries in Iraq. But here... as the neocons didn't care about alliances, you got only basically the UK. In the end it didn't go as planned, too few men and then when you actually did win the Al Qaeda, you went away and got ISIS to emerge from the void.

4) Obama didn't bomb Syria and hence lost his face by drawing an imaginary line with NATO members, even UK, saying no. Here you saw your own limitations WHEN NATO countries wouldn't join you. But naturally you forget it. And anyway, Syrian civil war came to it's conclusion no thanks to you.

5) You will need NATO countries if you get into a war with China. Or you will just deal with it all alone?

Right. Let's think about that.

Imagine how that will go when no Asian country is willing to come to your side when you face of China and NATO countries and Australia just "hope that tensions between China and the US will de-escalate". The idea of going alone just shows how piss has gone into the head of the US. Just as the US doesn't seem to care about the values it has shared with the West anymore (but goes with Russia and North Korea). And wants to start the most stupid trade war. Well, pay then happily the tariffs thanks to Trump.

It really comes down to this: when you cannot understand how much of the current prosperity you have is thanks to the Superpower status, it's really the epic failure of your own government to make it's case for this. Other countries have happily given the US the leadership role. But once other countries don't listen to you, you will understand it.

More of Elon's dubious attempt to create a 400 million contract for Tesla. Suddenly a +400 000 USD contract under Biden administration became a 400 000 000 USD contract. Or attempt on one.

(NPR) It appeared as if the State Department was taking steps to award Elon Musk's Tesla a $400 million government contract to buy armored electric vehicles to securely transport diplomats. The move to set in motion a lucrative contract to a company controlled by a high-profile ally of President Trump seemed so bold it surprised even longtime observers of the norm-busting president.

When asked about it, the State Department issued a statement saying the purchase is now on hold with no plans of fulfilling the contract, pointing out that talks with Tesla began during the Biden administration.

But NPR has obtained a State Department document detailing that Biden's State Department planned to spend just $483,000 in the 2025 fiscal year on buying electric vehicles and $3 million for supporting equipment, like charging stations. It represented less than 1% of the hundreds of millions of dollars likely destined for Tesla vehicles after the Trump administration quietly revised a State Department procurement document.

The vast discrepancy in the numbers raises the question: Was it an error or a deliberate action?

A former Biden White House official familiar with the State Department's plans told NPR the steps taken to advance $400 million worth of government business to Tesla appear to be intentional.

"I don't think this is a clerical error. It was likely someone who is new in [the] State [Department] who decided, 'OK, we're gonna do this with Tesla,'" said the former official, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

The person said the State Department and Tesla had agreed during the Biden administration to conduct research about armoring electric vehicles, but no money had been set aside to purchase armored Teslas for the State Department. A total budget of $483,000 had been approved to buy light-duty EVs as possible State Department vehicles. That plan was moving forward as recently as November 2024.

It's a perverse way to go: to say to fight corruption, one enables rampant corruption. To say one is improving the lives of the ordinary people, one makes everything even worse with few insiders going from corruption to outright looting and kleptocracy. To say one is for freedom of speech, one implements the most outrageous word-policing that is fitting to an authoritarian state and an environment of ruling by fear.

Yet Trump supporters are totally fine with this, because they have blocked away any criticism towards their leader. This is the way that conspiracy theorists work: they think that everything has been this huge conspriracy, and what they want is to have the conspiracy of their own as they don't believe that the antidote to conspiracies would be openness and stronger democratic institutions. People are sheeple, so it is necessary to use propaganda. Now the correct propaganda of the anti-deep state people. Conspiracy theorists are the enemy of a democracy, because they don't believe for starters that a democracy could or would be possible.

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive — Benkei

Just look at his official photo.

Coupled with being badly informed or misinformed, we get what people consider irrational on the outside. But it appears very rational; just mean and low. — Benkei

Is being mean and going low rational? I would think it's an emotional response, not rational. People did forecast that after the chaotic end of his last presidency and all the court drama that Trump has endured, he would be embittered and vindictive. And that's what he appears to be.

Trump is destroying all the pillars that the US has stood on. The US doesn't hold anymore values it once shared with Europe, and Trump will wreck the US economy as it wrecks it's own government. When the reasoning is based on such ignorant and foolish hallucinations like the US would become more prosperous by starting huge trade wars with everybody or that raising up prices with tariffs doesn't raise prices, the end result will going to be bad.

But there's the crowd that wants this to happen and live in a dream world where Trump is doing the right thing. When it all fails, as it will, they will just immerse themselves with even more ludicrous reasons how Trump's efforts were undermined by the deep state and the evil foreigners.

I thought NATO had to do with opposing communism. Communism is gone. — frank

NATO is a security treaty organization, which the European Union lacks. As states do have security issues even after Communism is gone and we don't have the old Cold War going, there is a need for NATO.

Why NATO has worked is because it's so totally dominating alliance. Nothing comes close to it. And European countries have arranged their militaries to work under NATO and with NATO. If there is no NATO, a lot of countries need to radically change their posture. And European countries have seen the obvious advantages with having an alliance.

Without NATO, Europe is a far more volatile and destabilized place. It's quite important that the armed forces of Europe are basically working together and not being against each other. The tensions between Greece and Turkey do show that there are and could be more tensions. Otherwise there could be tensions between Hungary or Romania etc. So just as with European integration, there's a solid reason for an European security integration.

Then just add one former Empire that is apparently reconquering it's territory, so you do have an urgent need for a security arrangement. Unlike some try to argue, there is a real threat that Russia poses for Europe.

The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us? — frank

The strength of the US or it's role of being a Superpower has come from it's ability to have allies, that voluntarily give it a leadership role. Europeans have been OK with this. The whole reason for us to listen what an US President blabbers about.

With no alliance, your out of the equation. Europe will go it's own way and won't listen to you. It won't buy your weapons and won't listen to you, because you are untrustworthy.

And as I've said, the whole reason for the USD to be a reserve currency is because of the Superpower status. NOT because of your economic position. Why the hell would we give you the position of reserve currency, if you are just our competitor and nothing else? That is ludicrous!

The impact will be that you won't have so warm ties with Europe and simply be a competitor, like China. Once we don't share the values, then we will drift away from each other. You really think that is a good idea?

Luckily I don't represent Gen Z.

Trump didn't come into power in a vacuum.

From your link:

White working-class men are hardest-hit: only
14.6% entered higher education in 2021, the
lowest of any ethnic or socioeconomic group.
One in three is economically inactive – a figure
that has doubled since the early 1990s – leaving
nearly two million young men out of work.
This leaves many struggling to find their place
in the world.

And this is the reason why the fascination. And just why the crusade against wokeism and the support for anti-immigration policies. And why populist movements are so popular.

It's an universal phenomenon in the West. I assume it's even a bigger issue in the UK, which has long had a very clear class system. Usually for boys who relate to the blue-collar background, school isn't a place for. Yet the similar issue is happening also in the Nordic countries, where a similar class divide isn't so apparent in the society.

You'll hear how it goes personally then. Let's just remember that this is the time when Trump has the backing in Congress.

I remember one former Australian prime minister saying that the way to get Trump's respect is simply hold your position. And when looking at the "deals" he makes, he isn't a good negotiator. I think he hasn't gone after Australia yet.

I think that Panama and Denmark just try to avoid the conversation getting back to them as there will be enough calamity in other issue that Trump dips his head into.

With Musk it's quite the same. But it's welcoming to see that from all of the people that have said that "don't give importance to Musk's emails" to their government employees it's Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. Having then public tantrums in your own social media isn't the most adult thing for Musk to do.

Zero comprehension of the separation of powers. — Wayfarer

And they will not get it. Starting from Trump.

So good luck having that Civil war of yours, because likely you have to fight to get back your Republic. If Americans still want to live in a Republic, that is.

Which is an over-reaction. But so is NATO. Its 30 years out of date, at least. — AmadeusD

How was it out of date? It has worked well.

No NATO state has been attacked and NATO countries haven't gone to war with each other (like Greece and Turkey). If there would be no NATO, the Baltic States and Eastern Europe would be in the similar situation as Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine are now. Or worse. Putin would already have been pressuring them for a long time. And perhaps Greece and Turkey would have had a border war.

The absolute lie promoted here is that Russia wouldn't acting as it is if there wouldn't be a NATO. This is simply shown not to be true when you look at Moldova... and it's frozen conflict. Moldova never has approached NATO in anyway, yet it has Russian troops inside it. Likely there would be "frozen conflicts" or similar events in the Baltic States (like Russian peacekeepers in the country), if they wouldn't be in NATO. This is the fact that the Putin appeasers simply refuse to even think about. Putin is the one making his country "Great Again".

And when one NATO country was attacked by non-state actors, article 5 was implemented. And to help the US. And in the end there were more NATO forces than American forces in Afghanistan, when the US decided to pull out after Trump had shown his brilliance in making surrender deals.

And the alternative? Just look at the alliances that the US has in Asia. Bilateral defense agreements with the actual countries having nothing to do with each other. South Korea and Japan don't work together. The only "alliance" is adding UK to the US-Australian bilateral agreement, which is quite natural since UK and Australia already have a defense agreement. No SEATO there anymore.

Besides, the Western European Union (WEU) was dissolved. Everybody, including the US, was happy with NATO back then.

Now perhaps a similar arrangement has to be made with Canada, UK and Norway and Iceland have to taken into a new defense pact as the US seems not to need any allies. Perhaps taking orders from the Kremlin is enough.

What do you make of it?
(Though tempting, I haven't brought up any psychological terms.) — jorndoe

You can talk absolutely crazy things and people won't notice how crazy they are, if you say you are "just thinking out of the box" or don't care about the "Overton window".

When Trump pulls the US out of NATO, these people will cheer like crazy: "Finally, out of it! Good riddance!"

Yet, if the US rid themselves of this cancer and forms a new paradigm of politics with an exclusion of charlatans and the corrupt, they may return their credibility. Most people know that what drives and leads the US today is a sickness, not a vision.

The sickness need to die and the world waits for the US immune system to deal with it. — Christoffer

Well, here's the problem... that sickness dying is the problem. What else will die with it?

Likely when the effects of those so lovable tariffs and trade wars hit Americans, they won't be so happy about Trump. Yes, you can have the democrats taking back the Congress and later the Presidency, or a new party or parties will emerge to do that perhaps. But the damage has been done. People aren't going be sure if populists came back later into power in the US. And Trump and the Trumpist will blame the foreigners for everything. They won't admit that the fault was Trump himself, that is for sure.

Take for example the next thought experiment. Assume that Russians finally would get tired about Putin and his kleptocracy and the whole regime would falter in a revolution. Russians would have had enough the imperial bullshit and opt to establish relations with the West. Fine, but you think people would again do what they did after the Cold War? That Russia is changed forever? The threat of Putinists retaking power would be looming there. You really have to make a true change totally in the wholee society in order to others to believe you have changed. Like Germany did after WW2. Well, that's not likely to happen in Russia. Just as likely as Trump, like Brexit for the British, isn't going to be so bad that all think it was terrible like... the Third Reich. The Brexiteers are quite lively and active even now. Hence likely the US will continue as an untrustworthy or faltering ally, and hence it's 80 year reign after WW2 has basically just ended. This won't go over.

Just look at above at the totally delusional rant that our favorite American that lives in Canada just wrote earlier in this thread . The scolding rant from JD Vance in Munich has a firm believer there. Someone who thinks that the culture war is the more pressing issue as the threat to Europe than actual war and to for us to have a defense against an aggressor, who surely won't stop once Trump has given Ukraine on a silver platter to him, just show how unreal this all is. Nope, that pinko-liberal gay Europe that attacks through DEI-programs the freedom of speech is the real threat, not the hybrid attacks and sabotage of Putin. Putin is their friend, because Trump likes him. And when Trump wants Greenland, Fox News has to badmouth Denmark of being like Venezuela, of course. Don't let Americans notice how insane their president is.

And then there's the argument of Europe resting on it's laurels while American did everything. Like our countries sent troops to Afghanistan for the Americans to decide for us to pull out and for Trump to surrender the country to the Taleban. And that Sweden and Finland haven't been under the NATO umbrella for all the time, with Sweden even making it's own nuclear weapons and still having that welfare state, doesn't matter. Oh, the nasty Europeans are going get what they deserve when America pulls out. That's the way these Americans will look at their work done by generations crumbling, with glee with a bit of shadenfreude as it would be someone else's misfortune than theirs.

And the next outcome is that the brilliant Trump peace deal likely won't happen, so no Nobel peace prize for Donald. Because of Trump, of course. A Rubio or a Kellog could actually even now work out a real peace deal, but as Trump takes the arena with Putin, there's no hope. Trump will do what Putin wants, and that won't fly with the Ukrainians. And Trump will get a tantrum, and will see Ukraine and Europe as being at fault here. And in the end, they have to spread hatred of Europe, because Trump failed. Perhaps they'll call again French Fries Freedom Fries. Or similar.

With Trump it's a fight between reality and the unreal, the lies that Trump says. And that will simply mean nothing will come out of it. Or many bad things will come of this.

At first, the most-stupid trade war ever will shread the good relations. Just look at how US-Canadian relations are deteriorating.

It's extremely easy to make people hate foreigners. Just assume that our countries in the Nordics would behave like Russia, and all hell would brake loose. Sweden could say that Finland is a purely artificial construct and naturally should be part of Sweden. Sweden could declare itself as a protector of the Swedish speaking minority in Finland, whom it would consider native Swedes and actually citizens of Sweden. Or Denmark could ask for Skåne back. Or Sweden and Denmark should compete which can get Norway, because the country has belonged to both of them. Hey, they have oil, so that would take care of financial problems, right? Watch what would be the reaction of the people and how they would start to look at their neighbors. Yet this would be and is totally OK for the Trump supporter, if the Swedish (or Danish) government would be on the Trump train and spreading the alt-right gospel. They deserve Norway or Finland, or Skåne or whatever.

But nope, we are the gay liberal Europe that keeps it's borders open. And seem to which have good relations with each other. We do have good relations. Because somehow we know that is better than hating your neighbors and instilling hatred between the people.

Never in history has a Great Power destroyed it's own structure of power as Trump has done now. You lose credibility only once.

The incoming chancellor of Germany says it well, adding to the comment that US interference in the elections was worse than Putin's interference:

"And what we also see with the greatest concern, of course, is the attempt (by Trump) to make a deal with Russia on Ukraine over the heads of the Europeans, over the heads of Ukraine," Merz told a press conference.

"It will come as no surprise to you when I say that this is unacceptable both for Ukraine and for Europe," Merz said, adding it would be difficult if those who put "America First" actually made their motto "America Alone".

Trump is doing such great job in alienating the former allies of the US, than even Putin has to intervene in his moment of triumph to get his plans through, as Trump in his stupidity would wreck it from the start.

(CNBC) Europe’s participation in Ukraine peace talks will be needed eventually but Moscow first wants to build trust with Washington, President Vladimir Putin said on Monday, while suggesting that a deal to end the conflict may still be far off.

I guess some kind of insanity has taken over Americans, as the Trump supporters simply cannot see how detrimental all this is to the position of the US in the global stage. It boils down to this ludicrous idea that somehow the US doesn't need the World or it's prosperity has nothing to do with the World outside it's own borders.

Well, it's just like the image of a Tesla car is now quite politically tarnished. I'd never even think of buying a Tesla now. Now if cuts the funding of James Webb and NASA in general, but then puts money into SpaceX Mars mission, at least I'm not so enthusiastic anymore of a Mars mission. It's not such an unifying moment, but simply more like a billionaires playground. (Which manned spaceflight largely has become)

Here's a question...

With how power-hungry and attention-seeking senators and politicians are, why isn't there republican politicians who take advantage of the current situation and oppose Trump? — Christoffer

Trump is still popular, and they fear the Trump croud. And Elon Musk.

After Americans have felt what those sweet tariffs in a trade war mean for their expenses, they will still support Trump. And the diehards will support even after the economy goes into recession.

Only then will they go after him. Now the start is that they correct the evident lies, like Ukraine didn't start the war.

* * *

The likely new Chancellor and election winner Merz didn't hold back on his critique of Trump & the Gang.

Friedrich Merz did not even wait for the final results in Germany's election before delivering what could well be a defining verdict on U.S. President Donald Trump, consigning Europe's 80-year alliance with the United States to the past.

The Trump administration does not care about Europe and is aligning with Russia, said Merz, who is on course to become Germany's new leader. The continent, he warned, must urgently strengthen its defenses and potentially even find a replacement for NATO — within months.

Merz's comments mark a historic watershed: They reveal how deeply Trump has shaken the political foundations of Europe, which has depended on American security guarantees since 1945.

Trump did congratulate the victors of the German elections, the first diplomatically reasonable thing to do, if he doesn't want to anger the conservatives even more. Likely outcome I assume is a coalition of the CDU/CSU with the social democrats.

If Trump thinks the CDU will get in bed with the AfD, think again...

But where the US is now is somewhere where we haven't seen it:

(Politico) A U.S. effort to sink a draft U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine failed Monday after European countries and Kyiv marshaled support for strong language against Moscow.

The United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution with 93 countries voting in favor. The U.S. and Russia both voted against it.

Alongside North Korea among others...

Says the man who saying that Russia isn't committing crimes against humanity, when actually taking children away is viewed as one way to preform genocide, actually. Or then you make a real difference between war crimes and "crimes against humanity".

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

That is a sure sign of a Putin-apologist right there.

One would think that this would be something that Elon would be positive about, but no.

Aahh... this has usually been the most positive, most optimistic and nice to read threads in PF.

Tells where the World is going.

Person who cannot refute the argument goes to ad hominem attacks.

Taking into account timelines, the history of Russia is quite bloody. But we are talking about the current here.

Not to mention there are all sorts of other problems here. Height is correlated with basketball success; almost all NBA players a huge outliers. Height is quite heritable. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Estonia are the tallest countries on Earth. Yet, you'd hardly select these populations as the ideal places to recruit a superstar basketball team if you knew anything about basketball, nor would you want some random 6'11 Dane on your team over 5'9 Isaiah Thomas. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not only are there actually more African-Americans than there are people in Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia, but one should also notice how much more popular basketball is in the US as in these countries. The popularity of a sport among the youth is extremely important.

But this naturally is a side issue, you can obviously note the difference in track and field and athletics. China is a country that really puts large effort in winning medals in the Olympics and got the second most medals after the US, but they aren't at all dominating in athletics (running, jumping and so on). In fact, in all Athletics competitions last time in the Paris Olympics, China got just one gold medal, in women's 20km race walk. And I think two other medals and that's it, from over 40 different competitions.

The denial of racial differences is one thing, but then the racist extrapolation from this is the real problem and it's effects on social cohesion. And what makes the whole discussion even worse is that we hear dog whistles everywhere. Discussions quickly transform into lithurgies. And people shun away from any discussion, as they fear to be marked.

What I think will be very damaging is when Trump is now firing from the US military black and female generals even without giving any reason (other than Hegseth saying they are fighting DEI). Well, the US armed forces has actually been a success story in combating real structural racism in the US, and hope it's not to backtrack here with the quite nonsensical and ludicrous "anti-DEI" policies.

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.

Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum. — Tzeentch

Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there!

The attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, hospitals and taking away of Ukrainian children just show what kind of enemy Putin's Russia is. Russian army had showed already in Chechnya how it fights wars.

I remember what a Finn that had fought in Ukraine told about a prisoner exchange they had. The Ukrainians delivered Russian prisoners of war, the Russian gave them Ukrainian children.

So that's the enemy you are so much understanding and putting on a different category. It really starts with things like Ukraine as a country "is an artificial construct". It is quite similar as the condescending attitude towards "There is no Palestine or Palestinians".

Perhaps it would be correct to think what the worst outcome can be here.

Well, it might be that:

a) European NATO countries insist to themselves that there is no problem with the Trump administration, that just as long as nobody asks Trump about it, we can just say that nothing has changed and the alliance is working. And Republicans will (behind the back of Trump, of course) insist that there's nothing to worry, the US is has their backs and this is just a negotiating tactic of Trump. Naturally they won't make this publicly.

b) That European NATO countries push Ukraine accept the punitive extraction attempt from Trump. Because of a).

c) Obviously Putin knows that he has Trump by the balls and can make him squeal as he wants him to do just by dangling in front of him some billion dollar deal that personally benefits the Trump family. Trump, who has never been interested in Europe or Ukraine, likely will give in for further demands as he sees the mirage of Russia billions in his eyes.

d) The likely one is what Putin has wanted for a long time, a demand which he actually put immediately on Trump when he was a candidate: have US troops leave the Baltics. And this can be done secretly, just like with Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, where the US just says it is pivoting to Asia. US forces simply won't participate in exercises in the Baltics... for cost cutting reasons. This is basically going back to the time when NATO didn't have any warplans to defend the Baltics, because having them would have upset Russia. And this was the truth before the invasion of Crimea 2014.

e) Once this is done, well, the Putin can freely go after the Baltic states with the much used playbook of creating "internal conflicts" and in order to protect the Russian minorities, "Russian volunteers" or "Russian peacekeepers" are sent in. And why not, because the US won't do anything and European members haven't prepared or don't want to intervene because of a).

The Finlandization of NATO is totally possible, which just show what an existential threat Russia is for Europe.

It is. The guy isn't a dictator, unlike one wanna be we have here.

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself. — Tzeentch

Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark?

The only difference is that Palestine and the Palestinians aren't a sovereign state that is attacked by another sovereign state, as in the case of Ukraine. That simply makes a huge deal, because once sovereign states can be done away with, that changes quite a lot in the World.

If you understand so well the reasonable objective of Putin's Russia, then you can well understand "the reasonable objectives" of Netanyahu's administration.

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey. — Tzeentch

It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics. — Punshhh

Yes, I agree with you.

What now is likely will happen is that Ukraine simply won't accept the Trump's pro-Russian plan, and Trump will have a temper tantrum on Ukraine ...and Europe. And Europe really has now to aid Ukraine. Let's hope they finally start with the billions of Putin's seized money. Then forget the spending limits and simply use debt to spend more on defense.

Here's what the Americans like JD Vance don't understand. Questions like wokeness or what is considered hate-speech, all this cultural war debate, are issues to be debated inside every democracy and their Parliaments and in their political arena. Threats to the existence of Sovereing states are totally different. And talking about taking the territory of another Sovereign nation state is an opening of Pandora's box. In Europe, we take it deadly serious. And the emphasis is on deadly. It's not about our economical benefits or political or moral character, it is the threat of war and our existence. Political debate or economic benefits or trade issues aren't so important. They don't mean anything compared to our security, which isn't just a few terrorists succeeding in their actions.

Trump seems to be incapable of understanding just how much damage he has done.

Stupid or not, the risk of a spiralling political polarization inside democracies can end up in the political protracted paralysis of necessary reforms to effectively addressing growing internal or external challenges. — neomac

Indeed it can. Polarization makes it difficult even to approach the other side in order to make any agreements. As one observer noted from the Parliament of the Weimar republic when he saw that the coffee tables in the cafeteria were marked by parties, you cannot have a democracy. If members of opposing parties cannot have a coffee together, democracy won't work!

In other words, democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking (all traits typical of Western democratic institutions and pedagogy) put together can be source of polarization that a foreign attacker can exploit against democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking. — neomac

Of course bad actors will abuse things like freedom of speach and so on. But the authoritarian looks at democracies being weak with all the woke nonsense. Yet in fact it's the authoritarians who are in the fundamentally weak, because they actually fear their people.

1. Appeal to morality doesn’t fixes per se clashes in moral sensitivity over lots of political issues: wealth redistribution, immigration, abortion, gender relations, religion, environment, etc. — neomac

Yes, but just look at those questions. They basically have a question of morality inside them, even if many aren't just a moral problem. You cannot "appeal" to morality. You have to make your case for your solution to the moral problem.

2. Leading by moral example is effective depending on moral sensitivity. Besides it doesn’t necessarily bring about the morally desirable collective behaviour in people by itself (namely without law enforcement), because people can be morally fallible no matter what is morally desirable. BTW one way people show moral fallibility is their disposition to detect hypocrisy in others more than in themselves, and often for the wrong reasons (since they assume their moral sensitivity to be the universal moral compass). — neomac

Yet leading by example goes only so far. If others won't pick up your example, refute that your wellbeing and prosperity happen because of "your example", they won't go along.

3. Political activism to moralize homeland politics is exploitable by rival foreign powers. And anti-Western authoritarian regimes have an asymmetric advantage to sow division over Western democracies. — neomac

And that usually can hit back at you very hard, if you aren't sensitive enough. Giving the "You People" talk to a crowd on how they should do a you do can sound arrogant and contemptuous. Anti-Western authoritarian government will do their propaganda, but if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions.

But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem won’t replicate). — neomac

You simply have a defective product. It's your loss.

as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. — neomac

Look, what I'm saying that if you want a functioning democracy, a prosperous country, then a lot of things have to be right. And if go to the DRC, we cannot think to change things to be like Switzerland. But what we can do is that they could be at least like in Botswana? Probably yes. That would be a huge improvement. First of all, you cannot think that a country is a democracy without all the necessary institutions and by just having elections.

Why can’t these problems be fixed in a morally satisfying way as in Finland? That’s what needs to be understood better. — neomac

Because you have to start with the reality that you have. Like for example the US. What it desperately needs is for it's citizens to think that the government works for them, and not the oligarchs. The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. What is happening now that some are pinning their hopes on an idiot reforming things and others are seeing how blatantly even without any fig leaf of the republic working as it's supposed to do.

The blatant error is thinking that somehow it's billionaires, that already enjoy the current system, would somehow reform the system. But Americans believe that these people are some kind of supermen. Poor people are stupid, billionaires have to be really smart, because they are billionaires, right? The public reaction to the shooting of a CEO is telling. What the country would have needed is for example that during the Financial Crisis, the Wall Street banks would have been treated like how the government treated the Savings & Loans bankers. That would have given credibility to the system.

So, in your opinion, there is no legal or de facto barriers to stop Trump from declaring himself El Presidente for life with unlimited executive powers? — kazan

Basically just the sycophant acolytes around him advising that his base wouldn't like it. As I posted on another thread, the most likely outcome here is a "competitive authoritarianism" where there are elections and a opposition, but the whole structure is rigged towards the leader. There will be elections, but sure as hell Trump will do what he already tried the last time around.

Sounds like the USA's constitution and political structure isn't worth defending because the Founding Fathers created a flawed country that has lasted well past its use or repair by date.

Due for a new model? Maybe it's getting that new model now? — kazan

It's not flawed or well past it's use. That would be basically what the authoritarians will market: Trump, or the "El Presidente" as in the Latin American model, has to circumvent the "corrupt" Parliament and judges. That's their line here. So they are already giving here "the new model".

It's from the "El Presidente" playbook: the opposition is the enemy and thus it has to be fought every way possible. The kind of consensus building that happens in a democracy is wrong and trying to make changes through legislation takes too much time and his the possibility of the "enemy", the opposition, to go against it.

2024 ... a whole two years into the war, and only to "replenish stocks" — boethius

This arms deal is simply the common sense and nearly inevitable result of sending nearly all the ammunition available to get used up in Ukraine — boethius

Well, you answered it yourself.

Now, NOW! they totally see the threat now and they are totally telling us the truth Now. — boethius

Well, because the Trump team is basically hostile to Ukraine and on the side of Russia. So yes, that indeed is really a change here.

"Saying stuff" is not building up arms in any meaningful way, whether to send into Ukraine as the "last line of defence" or then for your own preperation. — boethius

Poland isn't just "saying stuff". The way the Finnish military has started to train it's reservists isn't just "saying stuff".

Or news like this:

(Breaking Defense, 2024) German manufacturer Rheinmetall received its largest order in company history today: a deal with Germany for 155mm artillery ammunition, valued at up to €8.5 billion ($9.1 billion) and which will replenish Bundeswehr, Ukrainian and other allies’ stocks.

The European firm said in a statement that a framework contract for the ammunition was signed by Annette Lehnigk-Emden, president of the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), and Rheinmetall representatives in Koblenz.

“The order is primarily intended to increase the stocks of the German Armed Forces and its allies and to support Ukraine in its defensive struggle” added the manufacturer. It did not disclose the quantity of artillery shells on order but noted that deliveries are expected to start in “early 2025.”

Well ... why the fuck aren't they already ramped to the fucking max already in 2022 when the war that war to "stop Putin in Ukraine" started? — boethius

As I said, they were very slow to see the threat. Remember that Germany isn't anymore divided, it has Poland between it and Russia. And the US was still there to back NATO up. Poland has seen the light. Not Italy, France and so on.

And people falsely fell to Putin's scares of WW3.

Perhaps many here can agree that Trump's USA it's not classical fascism, but simply authoritarianism. Steven Levitsky & Lucan Way argue that the US is an example of competitive authoritarianism. Worth listening to:

It's so clear and blatant.

And all in the whim of basically what? An executive order? Or even without that?

Americans should understand that this is severe breach of the separation of powers and a Republic simply doesn't function like this. An autocracy works like this. The US has now gone overboard to be quite similar as Latin American countries, which try to change their huge problems with a President taking on dictatorial powers. And the end result is usually ugly.

If you think that things might change when Midterms come, will they? Even if a huge Democrat win. Trump is already sidelining the Congress, why would he then consider more.

DOGE simply tries to do quickly as much as possible before it is shut down.

An American senator explaining just what has happened and speaking the truth. What is notable, is that in Munich that the bipartisan delegation from the Congress were from both sides were supporting Ukraine. Until Trump did what he did.



Americans really should wake up on what is happening and how dangerous this is for the World. And it should be noteworthy to the Europeans here that there are many Americans like van Hollen, who are still for freedom and Atlantic alliance and understand the betrayal that Trump has done and is trying to do.

What is promising is that several conservative commentators that have been in the Trump train, did have reacted to the lies of Trump and the absurdity what the Mad House of Trump is doing and have at least corrected the lies.

Like Ben Shapiro (see from 4:58 onwards)


And some darling commentators of the anti-woke have also went against Trump, like Douglas Murray, who goes through the lies of Trump in New York Post:

You can criticize Zelensky, complain. But we should be under no illusions about who started this fire and who the true dictator or villain of this tragic tale is.

Trump has a chance to bring an end to this war, to stop the killing. Maybe even win a Nobel Peace Prize. But he will not be honored if the peace is an appeasement, one that bows down in the face of evil as it denies obvious truths.

The judgment of history will be even harsher — decades of peace and prosperity in Europe and America thrown away to a resurgent Russia harassing the East. Without a strong peace, it won’t be just Ukraine that suffers. It is all of us.

That is the ultimate truth.

(See Mr. President: Putin is THE dictator and 10 Ukraine-Russia war truths we ignore at our peril )

I might agree with these guys on everything and sometimes harshly disagree, but they are totally correct here. Worth reading that article above. Let's hope that this kind of sanity will prevail in the US and the House of Trump will stop the worst nonsense. Conservatism and the MAGA-loonies are still different things.

Ok, but what does any of that have to do with anything Jeff Sachs or I said? — Tzeentch

Actually, one thing I agree: Europe has to look after itself, because Trump has become the lapdog of Russia. I think I know the apologetics of Jeff Sachs, we've discussed that already.

Because they don't view Russia as a genuine military threat to the EU. — boethius

Lol. :lol:

Well, that's delusional and simply false. No, up until this week, Europeans have truly believed that the US is an ally. With US and NATO allies, there's such a mismatch, that there hasn't been a reason to spend so much more on the military. There was ample deterrence. Yes, it's not just Trump that has been talking about the "Pivot to Asia", that started with Obama. But taking a bigger role in defense of Europe and the US going along with Russia are quite two things. The military threat of Russia is totally real. This week, the threat of a larger war in Europe just increased. And so will likely the Russian hybrid attacks.

Where do I start...

From last year:

“We certainly face military risks. Putin’s war in Ukraine is the single largest threat to our security. This year, Russian defense spending is on track to exceed the collective contributions of all EU member states combined.

Therefore, we need to ramp up our efforts, understanding that readiness for the worst can prevent it from happening. Given the scale of these challenges, we must work together as Europeans to bring about change,” emphasized von der Leyen during her latest speech in Brussels.

Speaking during the Zbigniew Brzezinski Lectures series at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, Sikorski also said Europe was prepared to take responsibility for its own security.

In this context, he stressed Poland’s defense expenditure of 4.3% of GDP, which he said would increase next year to 4.7% and may go higher in the future. He said Poland had no desire for a military confrontation with Russia but had been a victim of Moscow’s imperialism too many times in the past. He said Poland knew what it is to live under tyranny and had no wish to return to it.

“We, Poland, will do whatever it takes not to become a Russian colony again, whatever anybody else does,” he said.

Describing Russia as an existential threat to global stability, especially in Europe, Sikorski compared its credibility with North Korea’s.

Do you not follow the news? — boethius

I do. Do you follow the thread, as you refer to two months ago? A lot happened this week.

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever.

As Trump is crushing the Atlanticism, and ending Pax Americana, Putin can be very happy. Alexander Dugin stated that this was the (and should be the goal) of Russia, and thanks to Trump, Putin is achieving his objectives.

Just as actually a Finnish politician that I really loathe, is for the first time saying something that I have to agree with: Trump can also throw Finland under the bus as he has done with Ukraine.

Well, Trump can obviously give absolutely anything as an executive order, because why not? He doesn't care a shit about how the Republic works and is sidelining the Congress and attacking the judiciary.

When Trump parrots Kremlin's lines, nothing else could better justify Putin's actions.

Pax Americana is dead and we are closer to war, if Europe doesn't get it's act together. Or at least form a willing coalition. Because Putin won't stop and he already has his sights on next targets.

(Financial Times)Russia used the first round of talks with the US over ending the war in Ukraine to demand the withdrawal of Nato forces from the alliance’s eastern flank, triggering concern in Europe that the Trump administration could acquiesce to seal a peace deal, Romania’s government said.

Cristian Diaconescu, the Romanian president’s chief of staff and adviser for defence and national security, said on Wednesday that the US delegation had rejected Moscow’s demand, but that there were no guarantees that Washington would not eventually make this concession to Vladimir Putin.

It's likely as Trump is Putin's poodle, he will likely give in. Likely it will be announced as "pivoting against China". Likely Trump will unleash a similar attack towards Europe as he did against Zelenskyi, if (and hopefully when) Europe stands with Ukraine.

And badmouthing Zelenskyi is done obviously to sell the Americans the surrender deal of throwing Ukraine under the bus. And Trump can surely throw other European countries under the bus too.

Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were never of much interest or value to the West, until the 199'0's, when they were opened up to capitalist predation. — Vera Mont

Well, before the 1990's they were behind the Iron Curtain and basically it would be WW3 to mingle with them. The Iron Curtain was also in the minds of the Western alliance. As is now the idea of all Russians being on the side of Putin.

This was first seen in Hungary actually, when Eisenhower didn't intervene. As I've said on the Ukraine thread, Russia has always tried to mimick not only the crushing of the Hungarian uprising, but especially the military operation Danube, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. It tried to repeat at the the start of the first Chechen War and tried again to do this in the start of this war in February-March, and utterly failed in the operation of capturing Kyiv.

Here's the delusionality of the Trump adminstration shown so well: JD Vance continues to rant in CPAC after Munich.



Europe has already started to close it's borders and for example Denmark has always been one of the countries against mass migration. We have already closed totally our eastern border against the international agreements that we've signed. And the EU is OK with that as they understand the threat of hybrid attacks. So this is all bullshit intended to create this idea of "woke Europe" that doesn't handle these issues, as if populist loonies are the only answer.

And furthermore, the whole "culture war" issue is meaningless chatter compared to the Pandora's box now opened by the US surrender. And I think these people are totally clueless on what is happening. Vance believes the 4-D chess negotiation tactic of Trump. As if Trump would suddenly change for the Putin's happy poodle -stance that he has had for even earlier than his presidency.

Some people want to repeat history.