European boots on the ground at this stage of the war is courting disaster. — Tzeentch

There's historic precedent without it leading to disaster. So what disaster are you thinking of?

Trump's relationships are transactional. What's he getting out of it? I think part of the answer is that he's clearing his desk in order to attend to China and another part is that he's trying to peel Russia away from China. Ideally, he would like Putin as an ally, but making him neutral would help too. It's quite likely that he sees Putin as a better ally than Europe. — Ludwig V

Your first two sentences make complete sense to me but your answer to your own question doesn't.

I don't buy for a minute Trump has a geopolitical agenda - he's never shown any inclination to understanding international relations or find a country on a map. Whatever motivates him has to be much nearer in time, benefit and probably more personal, considering his obvious narcissism.

I've advocated before that after NATO/USA fucked up by thinking Putin was bluffing before the start of the war they should've put boots on the ground instead of having Ukrainians die for our security (and their sovereignty). Without US support boots on the ground is possibly the only viable alternative for EU if they want to make sure land grabs aren't rewarded.

The idea that caving now doesn't prolong the war is only true with regard to the Ukrainian theatre but we are at war with Putin whether we like it or not. He's made that abundantly clear through all the cyber warfare and campaign influence Russia exercises in Europe with the complicit support of US tech giants (who love to sell distribution for propaganda as long as it turns a profit).

Moreover, a weakened Europe that gives in to Trumpian demands means we relegate ourselves to being vassal states of the USA but now unwillingly. It's, hopefully, a bridge too far for EU politicians.

EDIT: On a final note; it's about high time principles start governing policy again as that's the only true road to security. Pragmatism and opportunism have bred terrorism and antagonistic views across the world against the West; let their hatred pour over the USA idiot in charge - the EU should leverage that undercurrent and position itself as a trustworthy partner not out to police the world but to facilitate cooperation and peace.

I'm not. I think it's easy to speak support and much harder to actually do it and get consistent support for it over a longer time period (which we'll need). You'd think this sort of thing transcends party politics but it's very clear in the Netherlands they don't.

@ssu Compliment for the Fins and a blueprint for other EU countries in the Dutch newspaper NRC:

“Finnish society has always continued to prepare for the unpredictable. Exactly what we now need to do in the Netherlands.

This vigilance is reflected in the entire Finnish society. The professional army of approximately 25,000 soldiers can quickly be expanded to 280,000 in times of war. In total, the country has almost 900,000 reservists, or 16 percent of the population. Many CEOs of large companies are also reservists.

In addition, every organization of any size has a chief resilience officer, who monitors cyber attacks and other disruptions, for example. Furthermore, various government bodies actively prepare citizens for crisis situations. In addition, when building roads, viaducts and tunnels, account is already taken of the use by tanks and other large equipment, while in the Netherlands only a limited number of bridges and roads are suitable for heavy military transport.

In Finland, everyone knows what their role is when a crisis breaks out. Take, for example, maintaining emergency supplies of important items and food. More than 1,500 organisations and communities ensure – under the auspices and at the expense of the government – ​​that there is always enough fuel, food and medicine. The organisations involved divide up the responsibilities and decide among themselves who will take on which task in the event of a crisis. In addition, representatives of ministries, security services, NGOs, companies and specialists meet monthly.

What the Finns also do is organise ongoing simulation training sessions that allow employees of all kinds of organisations to experience, for example, the effect of a 72-hour power outage. Whether it concerns the supply of food, maintaining communication or caring for family, all vital functions are vulnerable in a crisis.

We can also learn from Finland in the field of education and information provision, especially in view of the increasing amount of disinformation and fake news. Urging citizens to create an emergency kit is not enough; we need to teach companies and people throughout society better how to prepare for crises. This can be done with very concrete, practical information about how to act in the event of a certain type of disruption. But it is also important to teach people how to be digitally safe, and how to recognize fake news and disinformation. It can also help if we make people aware of our democratic achievements, and how vulnerable they are. This is of course a long-term matter, but the need is there, and without awareness we are unprepared.”

(machine translated)

Not really. Attacking and holding land takes a lot more manpower than defending it. But as I said, the problem isn't manpower or material, it's the ability to cooperate logistically.

Trump only understands force or sucking his dick. Since sucking his dick means letting go of democratic principles that's a no go.

Europe needs to do everything, and I mean everything, to become independent from the US. Start by stomping the billionaires enabling Trump to the curb by simply prohibiting microtargeting European citizens. This will blow up at least their business case here and stop the industrialized propaganda systems. But if we do it, much like with GDPR, other countries will follow. Next, industry policy, secure resources and ensure we can upcycle everything ourselves to whatever we need, from solar panels to tanks. Finally, integrate defensive capabilities. If we take every army together, Europe is already the best equipped army in the world - it's logistics and policies keeping them separated.

Meanwhile, support Ukraine unwaveringly. While I will always maintain that the proxy war of NATO/USA against Russia largely contributed to the start of the war, that doesn't mean we can fail them again through another betrayal.

Cringe comedy.

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. — ssu

Yes, it's a form of rationality in that we can follow and predict his reasoning.

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. — ssu

But he and his cronies will profit so this doesn't matter.

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. — ssu

Of course, get rich or die trying. The illusion "this" could be yours is why most people buy (into) shit.

I think yes, prima facie it seems to be a fair analysis that it could be good for the US and Ukraine but it really depends on the deal. If it's fair and not extortionate, Ukraine will be fine with it, despite the questionable motivations underpinning it.

Where that leaves Europe is a bit of a different story though. Europe has supported Ukraine more than the US, with 132.3 billion EUR against 114.2 EUR billion by the USA (excluding UK, in which case the difference is even more significant). And where the US has only allocated another 4.84 billion EUR, Europe has already allocated 115.1 EUR billion. See Ukraine support tracker. That can change, of course, especially as you point out the USA would have a stake in Ukraine. But if European countries were cut out of the deal entirely, that will further fuel resentment towards the USA as we will have basically "funded" the deal through military support. So the knock-on effects could be quite different.

EDIT: also looking at the "deal", the last draft was the US demanding 500 billion USD in minerals, which is a multitude of the aid provided. Even with security guarantees that's a bit rich. At the same time there's the EU Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to integrate Ukrainian resource mineral extraction in EU supply chains through mutual investments. Seems a lot fairer!

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive. 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. Culture wars that do not exist but we will meddle with your elections, EU presumably created to screw the US, so here's some tariffs. Basically, if you're not part of the incrowd (e.g. goosestepping Trump's line), you will be fucked. Both abroad and in the USA. It somehow reminded me of this:

habitualising yourself wisely.

tell me how. I have huge issues with "spheres of influence" with a lot attention towards international geopolitics and 0 control and at the same time it affects my mood too much. Been working on it for a few months now with unfortunately not as much progress as I would like.

I'm more explicit about "I cannot control this" and then I can start accepting doing nothing but feeling nothing is still a long way off.

From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals. — neomac

I agree. Which is precisely why I proposed the prohibition on using personal data as a free resource to allow influence on an industrial scale. Your previously unedited post (thanks for this improvement) seems to consider me hopelessly out of touch with just about everything. So what would you propose to do about this?

It was reported today (I didn't verify) Trump blamed Ukraine for the war. That's really taking victim blaming to new heights...

I agree. I was just mentioning it so everybody realises that we have a real life example that works. So it's not just theoretical but a real option.

It's amazing such news isn't picked up more broadly. I hadn't heard about those sabotage attempts.

The reason 'disinformation' has become a problem now, is because the (near-)monopoly held by governments and large coorporations on news distribution has been broken up by social media and the alternative news platforms they accommodate. In many ways, this flight towards alternate media can be explained exactly because governments failed to be reliable information brokers. — Tzeentch

Governments are democratically elected and have all sorts of checks and balances and information access rights for civilians. The idea European governments are largely unreliable or untrustworthy is ridiculous. There are of course all sorts of issues with political parties that will blame other parties (or foreigners) for policies they themselves enacted or at the very least enabled for political gain. Obviously, government does not have a role in policing whatever bullshit political parties are peddling. If people were actually politically engaged and historically aware, which they generally are not, we wouldn't be sliding into the cesspool ahead of us.

And whatever issues people had or have with mainstream media is no different from the monopoly obtained by social media corporations. If this is a problem, your problem is with corporate capitalism - as it should be. Nevertheless, the suggestion that social media and "alternative news platforms" are qualitative alternatives for more traditional media is weird, considering basic journalistic standards are simply not implemented at most of them. There cannot be freedom of speech if we only talk about lies.

Only cracking down on the social media side of things will just give the establishment free reign on the information landscape again. — Tzeentch

This is factually entirely untrue. Well before the advent of social media there were a lot of new independent news websites that still approached journalism in a traditional way. For instance, Salon, Slate, the Drudge Report, Democracy Now!, AlterNet, Truthout, Raw Story, EUobserver, EurActiv, The Local, Meduza OpenDemocracy and Indymedia, etc.

Also the access to traditional media in other countries became much easier. All of them well before the rise of social media.

Key here is the acknowledgement that it's not just 'the other side' who is guilty of engaging in blatant use of propaganda. It's not just the Russians and the Chinese. It's not just the Trumpsters. It's almost everybody. — Tzeentch

That's a paranoid outlook on the state of things. When you receive a letter from the government about your taxes, it's not propaganda, it's communication. Governments interact in all sorts of ways and most of it is still beneficial even if there's always a lot of room for improvement.

Follow the money. Why are several companies multi-million dollars worth based on the premisse of utilising personal data to disseminate information and advertisements?

The driving force behind the spread of disinformation isn’t human psychology; it’s the way platforms use personal data to manipulate what people see.

Every click, like, share, and comment is tracked, analyzed, and used to create detailed profiles of users. These profiles allow platforms to predict what kind of content will keep someone engaged the longest. Misinformation benefits from this system because it is often more emotionally charged than factual news. Fear, outrage, and confirmation bias make people more likely to engage, and engagement is exactly what the algorithms are designed to maximize. Instead of prioritizing accuracy, platforms prioritize content that will provoke a reaction.

Because content is personalized, two people searching for the same topic might see completely different results. A person prone to conspiracy theories will be shown links that reinforce those beliefs, while someone with different browsing habits might receive more neutral or factual sources. The same mechanism applies to advertisements, political messages and even the news articles people see in their feeds. This is how misinformation becomes a self-reinforcing cycle; once a person starts engaging with misleading content, they are shown more of it, pushing them deeper into their own reality.

Without access to personal data, this system would break down. If platforms couldn’t track users’ interests and behaviors, they wouldn’t be able to microtarget them with specific narratives. Misinformation would still exist, but it wouldn’t spread as quickly or as precisely. People would be exposed to a broader range of content rather than being fed a curated stream that aligns with their biases. Filter bubbles would weaken, and the ability to manipulate public opinion through personalized propaganda would diminish.

A ban on personalized content wouldn’t eliminate misinformation entirely. People would still spread falsehoods, and some would actively seek out misleading information. But it would remove the most powerful tool that allows disinformation to be targeted, optimized, and amplified at an industrial scale.

@ssu All that talk about the EU in the Trump thread should be here. So I called Trump's victory 3 years ago here and worried about the implications and they turn out to be even worse than I expected. I expected Ukraine under the bus, didn't think Musk and therefore misinformation both internally in the USA but now also in the EU to be such a problem.

Really, one of the first things we ought to do, isn't to focus on the physical wars but the information war. We need to gut algorithms and AI systems in search engines and anything providing info and that's best done by a blanket ban on using personal data in those systems. If we don't, we will have a disintregrating EU with fascist like AfD and whatnot cheering along the way - right up to when things get a lot worse and there are no more allies because everybody is doing what's best only for themselves.

There's already something called Special Drawing Rights and there's definitive benefits to using a basket of currencies instead of USD.

Yes, it was totally rational to exterminate Jews, gays, Roma and the disabled because that they were all rats wasn't misinformation or false belief. Or witch hunts and the Inquisition in general. And that's just Europe's most well known examples.

The fascist gnomes' beliefs in dissidents, as if most people are not basically decent human beings, are never a threat of course because fascists cover each other's asses.

Now this security agreement obviously has to be reformed. Trump isn't a bug, it's a feature in US policy and Europe simply cannot rely on the US to be there, even for it to understand how important for itself is to have all the European countries as it's allies. The talk of the US leaving NATO has been a theoretical possibility, but now is becoming a genuine possibility. Perhaps the country that truly feels things changing is Denmark, which has been a loyal NATO member. Needless to say, no politician wants to talk about this idea from Trump. — ssu

Much sooner and for different reasons than I expected but where 6 years ago I was still against a centralised army for the EU, because it would create our own military industrial complex, I changed my opinion in this very thread 3 years ago: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/693678

I've been hammering on the EU leaving NATO since then as the only reliable way forward for our security.

There's no definition of aggression where forcefully taking another country's land isn't aggression. There's no justification for it, only explanation. That we can explain their actions from a real politik perspective doesn't make it morally right.

Aggression has just been rewarded. I don't see in what world that's a good thing. That the USA/NATO fucked up in the lead up to the Ukraine war (twice) doesn't mean they are doing the right thing now.

I don't ban people for being dumb or having morally abject opinions. If you don't enjoy it, you're welcome to leave.

As usual a dumb post. Go away, mate.

Edit: to clarify, rhetorical questions are dumb.

Well, there has been always the possibility material risk that Trump will fuck it up as he did with the surrender deal to the Taleban where he did through Afghanistan (and other allies like NATO) under the bus. — ssu

Fixed it for you. This was rather obvious. And we already have the first post defending it. Excellent. I give the UN another 10 years at most after which it will have become irrelevant in its entirety due to the continuous undermining of it.

EDIT: to expand on my take.

Trump has thrown Ukraine under the bus, that much is clear. Yet many people still don’t seem to fully grasp the consequences. This deosn't seem to be, as is often the case, a conflict between America and Europe; but appears to be a fundamental rupture.

Trump wants to keep Europeans outside of the discussions. Exact motivations are difficult to ascertain considering his erratic behaviour. Being seen as a ‘peacemaker’ and cheap rare earth materials have been mentioned. But in reality, he is saddling Europe, as well as the international community, with enormous problems.

The first immediate problem is: how do you prevent Ukraine from collapsing if American support disappears? Ukraine needs a lot of weapons—and very quickly. The loss of Ukraine would have catastrophic consequences not just for Europe but for the entire world.

Meanwhile, Trump’s followers seem to idolize him, but he is proving to be an exceptionally weak leader and a shitty negotiator. He's given away Ukraine territory and NATO membership before negotiations have even started. Seriously? He should have simply begun negotiations—not handed everything over right away. It increasingly looks like Putin has kompromat on Trump - as was already raised by you in the first term.

The international order as we know it has, in a sense, been blown up. The reliability and credibility of America’s word are now worthless, and as a result, the credibility of Article 5 has also been severely damaged. People are starting to consider their own form of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Many treaties, especially the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are now under heavy pressure.

Moreover, other dictators are realizing that by possessing nuclear weapons, they can attack neighboring countries as long as they threaten to use them enough. There will always be a Western leader willing to reward them for it. This effectively erodes the existing world order that had been in place since 1945. It will still exist on paper, but in reality, the law of the strongest and the shifting of borders will happen more frequently.

And if people think, "Well, it’s just Ukraine," then I think we need to remember that in December 2021, Russia issued an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe. That demand will return, which is why people must insist on having a seat at the table. This is the greatest betrayal of the United States since the Tehran and Yalta conferences and the fate of Poland.

Lmao. Pity? You've demonstrated to be generally incapable of the emotion so obviously I wasn't expecting it.

Nice projection. I have not taken you seriously since your idiotic replies about my purported "holiness", which was you that started to make it personal.

Right after he made it personal twice. So yes, another dimwit. You're in dumb company as usual.

Stop making it personal dimwit.

Grow a conscious instead of rationalising crimes all the time.

Hegseth just threw Ukraine under the bus. Who needs enemies when there's the USA?

Good to see all these Jews in support of deportation. Well done for having learned fuck all from this thread, history or having a smidgen of common decency.

Let's do what the Israeli have been trying to do for decades...

your post amounts to justifying making conditions terrible enough for people to want to leave and then ask "why is it bad that they want to leave?" I'm all for avoiding death and suffering but let's not blame the victims shall we?

Everything Trump says with respect to international relations is just the opening bid in a negotiation. He anchors it at something ridiculous and then Canada is spending 1.3 billion on something nobody needs. The way to deal with Trump is to ignore the threats and find alternatives that are more reliable.

But at least part of the 2008 financial crisis was due to the perverse incentives faced by massive government run banks, and America's student loan crisis shows how these sorts of problems are not easily dealt with. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What? I assume you're referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while they had charters, they were privately owned and only became "government run" after the crisis. Let alone that all those "professional" private banks and investment funds invested in alt-A and subprime mortgage backed securities securitised by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae without understanding the risks related to them, e.g. they were so professional they had no clue what they bought. The market collectively underestimated the risks because money was cheap and everybody was running around looking for yield. And in that respect nothing has improved since then.

To claim the 2008 financial crisis was due to perverse incentives at massive government run banks is smply not true.

It's a bit "pick your poison" where you want to send your data though. China or the US. It both sucks in that respect. We really need an EU alternative with the GDPR and AI Act and therefore protection of people's rights.

@Pierre-Normand What are you making of DeepSeek? It seems pretty good. Are the claims about energy usage and computing power etc. true? Probably all stuff I can look up but I trust your assessments as well!