The world typically doesn't want and resists change. That is until it can't any longer, and then things can change rather quickly.

If you look at human history 'gradualism' doesn't really seem like the norm, but rather periods of relative stability interspersed with rapid revolutions... punctuated equilibria. — ChatteringMonkey

This is so true. Everything stays rather the same, until there's a war or people somewhere simply get fed up with their bad situation and revolt or when the markets panic and we have a crisis that gives us an economic depression.

The US is widely considered by political scientists to be in decline. That's not a result of Trump. It's just that the world changes. — frank

Well, I would still remark that a lot that has happened has been self inflicted. Yet, think about it for a while from another perspective:

If the US is decline, where does that leave:

a) Europe?
b) China?
c) Russia?
d) the rest of the World?

When you actually look at all the places now a) - d), they don't actually look so great.

Heck, it's said that I live in the country where the people are the most happy. If that would be true, the World really, really sucks. In many ways, my little countries growth projections are similar to Japan, even if our population hasn't yet declined. Yet Japan shows that this doesn't mean that there will be an economic collapse, just low growth.



One of the interesting questions is how much of this decline and low economic growth is simply due to the demographic transition of countries. Decreasing populations don't create a reason for economic growth.

One of these days you're going to finally get that this a concern for you, not Americans. — frank

Not at all worried about losing your Superpower -status? Lol. Heck, the whole Trump revolution says in writing that this clearly isn't so: Make America Great again. So I guess that a lot of Americans, including future generations, will ask why it happened, if you lose the status.

There's nothing stopping the world from doing this. — frank

The "world" typically doesn't want dramatic changes. Change just is forced upon "the World" when a crisis hits and the effects are unavoidable. Sticking to the present status quo is usually the policy that the vast number of countries prefer. Hence changes don't happen in an instant.

And here it should be noted that there's a quite cacophony of different signals coming from the US.

First and foremost, Trump isn't the kind of politician able to be in control of the whole apparatus (for which actual leadership would be needed). He is more in control of his surroundings in the White House as in the first term (where he unintentionally chose "adults" to be in the room).

Usually Trump's "policies" are just aimless reactions with no clear objectives. Tariffs were surely the thing in his mind (for a long time), but he had to do his TACO. And now? Just look at what a quarter of the US Navy is doing in Venezuela: what on Earth is the objective? Likely the objective is just to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what would stick. Trump and the MAGA crowd (what's left of it) might want to do away with EU and NATO to the great satisfaction of Russia, but it's not so simple. Hence in this environment the Congress and actually the US Military are sending quite different signals as the Pro-Kremlin White House.

NATO and Denmark got through the first Trump administration with Trump not invading Greenland and the US breaching article 1. of the Washington treaty. So the question here is: why wouldn't we get through the next three years too? Then have the democrats regain the White House and it's likely back to something similar as earlier...

These changes take time.

?

You don't notice that the real tribute is the dollar being the reserve currency and your government having this "perpetual" credit of taking on enormous amounts of debt? That is the tribute system that has made you so wealthy and capable of spending so much on the military!

But notice the important aspect of this: this arrangement has been fruitful and reasonable for the allies of the US and they have been OK with this.

Other Great Powers countries, like Russia/Soviet Union, don't have and never had such alliances like the US has. Russia has now basically North Korea and a lukewarm yet difficult China. And China? Basically Pakistan, because of India. (Which shows just how warm the relations are between BRIC-countries.)

Bullying just goes so far, you know. And this is one of those issues that people don't get: sovereign European countries chose voluntarily to be in the US lead security structure. Once the Soviet empire collapsed, those former "allies" rushed away from Russia. And for a reason, as it should be obvious to everybody!

And what Trump and other American politicians never will say that it's the US itself that has wanted Europe to be dependent on the US. Because there's always "Strategic Autonomy", which you should note when European leaders talk. It's something that the US has been against.

Hence you can look at it from this angle: Why are European countries really trying to get to that 5% defense expenditure so eagerly? Because the US has transformed to be a very untrustworthy ally. That 5% defense expenditure will establish deterrence if the pro-Kremlin stooge in White House wants to shatter the Atlantic alliance.

But then comes the real question: without the US being the defender of Western institutions and the primary member and leader in it's alliances, why would dollar be the reserve currency anymore? Remember that we didn't get Bancor, we got the Bretton Woods system and after the default by Nixon, the petro-dollar system was too based on defense pact with Saudi-Arabia also. Not based on economics. There's absolutely no other real reason for other countries somehow deciding that the US dollar should be a reserve currency. The logical solution would have a basket of currencies, where the US dollar is the biggest currency (but not the sole currency).

An odd observation is that American voters appear to have chosen this path deliberately and obliviously; it doesn't help them in the longer term, especially those who are not well-off. — jorndoe

Many Americans don't understand that their present prosperity exists because of the vast alliance networks the US has been able to create, which has made the country into a Superpower. And many believe the total opposite, which Trump promotes, that the alliance structure is a burden to them. Which is nuts, but anyway, when people are ignorant, they can believe anything.

Do you believe the terror attacks there would not have occurred had they stronger censorship laws? — NOS4A2

No.

The response to terrorism from small cabals and individuals who are fighting for some messianic lunacy is very difficult. There's no one silver bullet. Let's just remember how small the cabal was that formed the "Al Qaeda" in September 2001. Yet an excessive response that undermines the democratic institutions themselves is counterproductive. Many terrorist organization actually intend to act this way: they attack the government in order for the government to "show it's real ugly faces", which then will create the actual revolution. The Red Army Fraction of West Germany was a case example of this, it's members were totally convinced that the West Germany government was actually the Third Reich in disguise and from their actions the true "Red Army" would emerge.

Not to treat a tiny group of criminals as criminals, but as an enemy in a war basically gives the terrorists credibility and undermines the institutions in a justice state. Just like Trump inventing that drug smugglers are "narcoterrorists".

ISIS is direct result from US actions in Iraq and has basically nothing to do with censorship laws. Yet do I consider that ISIS propaganda ought to be banned? Yes. Democracies have to defend themselves from those who do want to overthrow it's institutions. Is it a complicated issue? Sure.

Guess who else bans speech they do not like. ISIS. — NOS4A2

For extremists "freedom of speach" has always been only a vehicle to get their message spread and something that afterwards can be done away with as it poses a threat to them.

Brilliant. Now we don’t know who is espousing that message and are blind to the content of that message. After all, the aim of all censorship is ignorance. — NOS4A2

Oh, you get it so wrong. Prior the terrorist attacks, the UK police didn't care what was preached in various mosques or what kind of leaflets were distributed. When some people noted just what kind of hate speech was distributed, the answer given back to them was that there's "freedom of speech". Now it's different.

Attempt to distribute ISIS material and you will likely notice that even the Canadian security apparatus will take a notice of what you are doing, nos.

When nothing has happened there's actually indifference, then people and politicians hail things like freedom of speech. Yet once something bad happens, the same politicians are the first to brush aside "freedom of speech" issues in an instant. When the discourse changes to fighting terrorism, then all those rights seem to go out of the window. Populists like Trump and his cohorts are the perfect example, but usually even with the conventional American politicians this was obvious.

In fact, it takes really strong institutions in a society to sustain a justice state and things like freedom of speech, when a society is faced with a traumatic terrorist attack or something similar. Too people many cry for revenge and for them "following the laws" is too lax and just shows the failure of the state. Worst thing is if politicians are eager to give this crowd the blood what they cry for and disregard the law when doing it.

The Nazis were routinely censored. Hitler himself brought up the fact of this censorship in his debates and used it as justification to censor others. The one time censorship ought to have worked, it didn’t. — NOS4A2

One time, eh?

I think there's far more examples of "censorship" actually working and it being positive that the actions worked, even if freedom of speech is extremely important to a functioning democracy. Let's start from things like the ideological teachings and the propaganda of Al Qaeda and ISIS that aren't permitted to be freely distributed due to "freedom of speech" laws anymore. In the UK earlier their message could be openly published and publicly preached. Not anymore.

Now you may have your ideological views and believe that incitement isn't real, then start from the writings of those above mentioned terrorists and their texts where they incite people to kill all Americans, including civilians, being the correct thing to do. Perhaps that shows you better what incitement is than the historical and present example of incitement against the Jews.

There does exist actual hate speech, not just what the woke consider to be hate speech or the term just used as a rhetorical tool to denounce someone.

One might argue that it isn't censorship, but that is quite hypocritical.

It doesn't make sense. Just like the term "narcoterrorists" (something similar to "islamofascists" that the Bush administration came up with).

Trump and Maduro had actually before talks about Maduro leaving. Maduro made demands on in what situation he indeed would be leave. Trump didn't accept these. If Maduro cannot save face and resign and leave his own country yet leave his country intact (which would make him a hero in the eyes of his supporters), then likely he will be there until the bitter end.

This isn't a person that like the former Afghan president who was picked because he had a stellar academic career in the US (and just happened to had been born in Afghanistan).

What can actually happen is what already happened with Iran. The US makes a strike against Venezuela basically destroying it's Air Defences and then Trump declares a victory! And anybody in the US government who even thinks to doubt this let alone comment about it publicly will be fired.

And Maduro can simply continue in power (or the Bolivarian revolutionaries, if Trump is so lucky that he get's Maduro killed), and then blame everything on the US and claim that the opposition are just stooges of the murderous Americans.

And Latin American relations are extremely strained, especially when it comes to Trump.

Remember still this?

Trump, speaking in The Hague where he attended a NATO summit on Wednesday, said his decision to join Israel’s attacks by targeting Iranian nuclear sites with huge bunker-busting bombs had ended the war, calling it “a victory for everybody.”

He shrugged off an initial assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency that Iran’s path to building a nuclear weapon may have been set back only by months, saying the findings were “inconclusive” and he believed the sites had been destroyed.

“It was very severe. It was obliteration,” he said.

This might be one outcome. If Trump doesn't sail his armada to the waters Greenland, if the Epstein scandal heatens still up.

Animals in sanctuaries will naturally die when their lifespan has come to an end. — Truth Seeker

No, they will reproduce. You have to intervene for them to do what is the most natural thing for living things doing.

Cultivated meat is not a refutation of vegan ethics - it is evidence that society is already trying to escape the moral and environmental costs of animal farming without confronting them explicitly. — Truth Seeker

Hypocrite bullshit: Commercial enterprises aren't interested in moral ethics about eating meat, they are doing this for profit. But feel free to go with the advertising.

Monocropped soy and grain feeding billions of confined animals is one of the most ecologically impoverishing systems humans have ever created. Wild game tastes different precisely because it is not produced by that system - but scaling “wildness” to billions of humans is a physical impossibility, not a moral option. — Truth Seeker

I agree. Yet the simple fact is that we don't know all the things what provide the different taste and the healthiness of "wild" food. And that makes myself critical of just how "healthy" artificial food will be.

Again you are totally forgetting what drives our societies and economies: the market mechanism. Yes, you could just eat everything wild, plants and game, and live in a city. Your food budget just would be enormous, likely multiple times of an ordinary family.

It’s an argument for better food systems, better regulation, and justice-focused transitions, not for maintaining harm because alternatives are imperfect. — Truth Seeker

And I think those are quite important issues, just as is not to be cruel towards animals and part of the biosphere. Just smart animals, but that's it.

I recommend that we implement a Universal Basic Income and Facilities (e.g. free accommodation, healthcare, education, etc.) for all humans. This will end poverty globally. — Truth Seeker

Again here you go with your incredible hubris. Just who do you think will do this? Just how? Belief in a World government solving everything is extremely naive. The World doesn't work this way. Far better is to think about improvements that actually could be implemented and would get closer to the ideals.

We may not reach agreement - that’s fine. But dismissing the position as “utopian” sidesteps the central question rather than answering it:
If we can meet human needs without systematically harming sentient beings, why should harm remain the default? That’s the question I’m putting on the table. — Truth Seeker

In life living entities eating other living entities is totally normal and in my view, we are animals.

For you, there is no value in the life of a cow, because you have decided it's existence isn't worth wile, because it suffers. Well, even wildlife suffer, and do have usually a short and nasty life of hunger and disease. But that's OK for you. That's your basic problem and we won't reach an agreement.

But coming back to the actual subject of this thread, your world view is far more religious than scientific, even if you deny it.

I'm not sure how to get it across to you that Americans in general do not care what the US looks like to the rest of the world. At all. Nada. — frank

Part of America does get it. And they aren't happy about it. But as long as the economy doesn't tank, the Trumpsters will follow their leader into everything. A war Venezuela? Bring it on! Kash Patel informing us that Epstein never trafficked minors? Must be true then...

. I can’t see how American society can survive this seeing their highest office dragged down into the gutter and the President defecting to the Kremlin. — Punshhh

Never underestimate the power of denial. They'll simply deny it to happen. It's all fake news!

And the Americans already have their antidote for everything: Any criticism towards Trump is simply "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

What else?

And likely Susy really tells the ugly truth here:

“He wants to keep on blowing boats up until [Venezuela’s Nicolas] Maduro cries uncle,” Wiles said of Trump.

And I think that this is the brainfart that Trump is now following. He just assumes that if he blows up boats and seizes oil tankers that Maduro will cave in and flee to Cuba (or something similar).

Why on Earth would Maduro this?

This shows how absolutely incompetent this administration is. It worse as Trump has now around him Yes-men that will do anything he wants, unlike in the first administration when there were "adults in the room". The only thing that Trump can reach is the destruction of US image and standing in the World. Something that Putin will love to see.

Combine this with the common liberal view that that which cannot be justified by liberalism is "very problematic," and you arrive at a remarkably deep level of political incoherence. The pure liberal can't justify martial law, but it's so much worse than that. The pure liberal can't even justify the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Again, smoothing this over as if it were a minor problem with liberalism is wild. — Leontiskos

It's only a problem or incoherent when you take liberalism as the premis and then use logic to look at the consequences of what then all politics and laws should be like.

Even if you have liberalism, you also have collectivism, all the conservative and religious values etc that mold the behaviour of a society and these other ideas don't go, or have to go, hand-in-hand with liberalist ideology.

I think the real problem is that collectivism or ideologies based on the well being of the collective were utterly damaging nightmares in the 20th Century, namely Marxism-Leninism and Fascism/Nazism. Liberalism that starts from the individual has difficulties then to focus on the group or society as a whole. It simply assumes that as the society is made of individuals, then there's not much else than think of the society as just an aggregate of individuals. Well, people as part of a family or a larger group don't actually behave as the self-centered individual.

Right, and that's my point. I'm not sure how this fact can simply be smoothed over. — Leontiskos

It's a de facto part of a democracy. Having democracy and a justice state is just a safety valve (and something that gives legitimacy for power). The people (and their representatives) can still have quite illiberal tendencies. And one still needs for peace things like military deterrence.

Ideologies are fine when they are building blocks for actual policies. But if idealism and ideological purity is the only guiding light when you decide actual policies, you get zealots who basically throw the baby out with the bathwater and create enormous damage.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine.

Domesticated farm animals are not natural species with independent ecological roles; they are human-engineered populations bred into dependence for human use. Ending their forced reproduction is not eradication - it is refusing to continue a harm-creating practice. — Truth Seeker

What about plants them? The plants we eat have been bred for thousands of years. We (or many urban dwellers) hardly eat any wild plants, actually.

In the end I will say this. If you have your ideology and stick to veganism, that's great, you surely have the right to do that and likely you have a healthy diet knowing the supplements you have to take. Yet if you push this, something that 1% of the population adheres to, as for everyone to adapt as a great transformation of the society and assume that everything would go just fine this bombastic plan of retirement homes for all of the Worlds livestock where in the end we waiting which will it be, Maude the cow from Thetford UK or Haru from Japan, that will be the last cow on Earth to die of old age, I beg to differ. I don't we'll reach here any agreement, because it's an utopian idea and basically as devastating as some Pol Pots idea of eradicating urban life, money and making everybody collective farmers.

* * *

Yet I think there's a possible future that might at first seem as answer to your hopes, but actually it isn't. And that's meat processed artificially in a lab.

Now, if that lab meat starts to be dirt cheap, you will know that the no hamburgers at McDonalds and others will come from a living cow...ever. If the production lab meat is one tenth of what a traditional livestock meat, then many people will prefer then the cheaper one. And knowing how corrupt the US food regulation is, health hazards will surely be downplayed. Yet this is the only way that traditional livestock will wither away partly, because of decreased demand, and hence it will become in the long run more costly or simply become the delicatessen of those that can spend it.

Just as with wild plants and plants produced in greenhouses, there's the flavor problem. That there's many for example mushrooms that we simply cannot grow ourselves shows just how limited our understanding of the biosphere is. Something that you cannot know being yourself as vegan, but there's a radical change in taste and in the healthiness when animals are fed with the monotone food of soy and grain or if they eat the variable diet in the wild of many different plants. In fact someone that hasn't any time eaten wild game, the taste will feel likely too strong. You might notice it in the difference in taste of wild berries in the forest near you and berries that you can buy at the Supermarket grown from Egypt/California/somewhere that are larger but less tasty.

Yet unfortunately if that lab meat will be so cheap and easy, perhaps advancing to make even the muscles of sirloin and tenderloin that we know, there is no reason why we wouldn't also get lab plants too. Likely these will be even worse tasting than our greenhouse based plants, but if a bag of artificially manufactured potatoes cost 5 dollars and potatoes grown in soil outside on a farm cost 10 dollars, then which one people will little money to spend will take?

Now as Trump is going after oil tankers, it's noteworthy what the response has been from Latin American countries:

Mexico:

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has urged the United Nations to “prevent any bloodshed” in Venezuela, as Donald Trump piled more pressure on the South American country.

“The United Nations has been conspicuously absent. It must assume its role to prevent any bloodshed and to always seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts,” the leftwing president told reporters the morning after Washington announced a blockade of “sanctioned oil tankers” entering or leaving Venezuela.

Brazil:

SAO PAULO, Dec 20 (Reuters) - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Saturday that an "armed intervention in Venezuela would be a humanitarian catastrophe" in the face of escalating actions from the United States toward regional neighbor Venezuela.

Colombia:

(Dec 3, the Guardian) Colombia’s president has warned Donald Trump that he risked “waking the jaguar” after the US leader suggested that any country he believed was making illegal drugs destined for the US was liable to a military attack.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the US president said that military strikes on land targets inside Venezuela would “start very soon”. Trump also warned that any country producing narcotics was a potential target, singling out Colombia, which has long been a close ally in Washington’s “war on drugs”.

Shortly afterwards, Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, hit back in a social media post, saying: “To threaten our sovereignty is to declare war; do not damage two centuries of diplomatic relations.” Petro also invited Trump to visit Colombia – the world’s largest producer of cocaine – to see his government’s efforts to destroy drug-producing labs. “Come with me, and I’ll show you how they are destroyed, one lab every 40 minutes,” he wrote.

Naturally Trump doesn't care at all of the neighboring countries or diplomacy. Building up any coalition to support US military actions is not his thing. Or seeking support or even listening the international organizations, which he hates with all of his guts.

(November 2025) Latin American and European nations issued a call for peace and dialogue following a high-level summit between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU).

“We reiterate our opposition to the threat or use of force and to any action that is not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” read Sunday’s joint communiqué.

(November 25th 2025) The head of the Organization of American States (OAS) has urged the United States and Venezuela to de-escalate their tensions, warning that the region does not want a war.

Speaking at a virtual press conference, OAS Secretary-General Albert Ramdin said he supported efforts to counter organised crime but insisted they must adhere to international law.

"We don’t want any war in our hemisphere. Peace is truly, ultimately, what everyone in this hemisphere wants. No one wins in a war," Ramdin said.

He added that he was "not in favour of any incident leading to an escalation of a war-like situation."

"We must maintain the hemisphere as a zone of peace," he said.

And then there are very telling actions, for example what the UK intelligence services have done.

(CNN, Nov 12th) The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

And it seems it isn't just the UK:

The US military operation against Venezuelan alleged drug traffickers coupled with threats by Donald Trump for a ground assault against President Nicolas Maduro have troubled European powers who retain strategically located territories in the Caribbean, observers say.

The concern of France, the Netherlands and the UK is such that they have started limiting intelligence sharing with Washington about the Caribbean over worries it could be used for strikes that would be considered illegal in their countries, according to officials and sources who spoke to AFP.

All this shows that if (when) US takes military action, Trump's own "special military operation", the response will be cool. Perhaps Bukele of El Salvador and Hungary's Victor Orban will cheer for Trump.

Seizing of oil tankers:

Maybe coincidental. — jorndoe

It isn't.

Check how many similarities you find with this speech from an US president in 2003. Do you find:
- The offender insists that they were victims of circumstance, forced into a situation beyond their control.
- The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage. "We're not really hurting anyone.
- The offender insists that the victim deserved it. "They had it coming."
- The offender maintains that those who condemn the offence do so out of spite, or are unfairly shifting the blame off themselves. "We're judged by hypocrites."
-The offender claims the offence is justified by a higher law or higher loyalty such as friendship.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

I think there's a lot in common, even if some things are different.

It's noteworthy what the above and the declarations of the Reichstag and Russia don't have is the following from George H.W. Bush speech from 1990:

In the last few days, I've spoken with political leaders from the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the Americas; and I've met with Prime Minister Thatcher, Prime Minister Mulroney, and NATO Secretary General Woerner. And all agree that Iraq cannot be allowed to benefit from its invasion of Kuwait.

We agree that this is not an American problem or a European problem or a Middle East problem: It is the world's problem. And that's why, soon after the Iraqi invasion, the United Nations Security Council, without dissent, condemned Iraq, calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from Kuwait. The Arab world, through both the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, courageously announced its opposition to Iraqi aggression. Japan, the United Kingdom, and France, and other governments around the world have imposed severe sanctions. The Soviet Union and China ended all arms sales to Iraq.

And this past Monday, the United Nations Security Council approved for the first time in 23 years mandatory sanctions under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. These sanctions, now enshrined in international law, have the potential to deny Iraq the fruits of aggression while sharply limiting its ability to either import or export anything of value, especially oil.

I pledge here today that the United States will do its part to see that these sanctions are effective and to induce Iraq to withdraw without delay from Kuwait.

This was the time that the US would use the international rule based order it itself had built after WW2. I think this was the real apogee of US power and afterwards it's been really downhill from that.

Doubtful that China would just go randomly sink a carrier.

If the US imposes a blockade that is a clear act of war and if then China retaliates that would be unlikely to be a "Pearl Harbour" moment but opinion would be mixed, even if a carrier got sunk. — boethius

Doubtful that Trump would just go randomly to impose a blockade of China.

The problem is if China declares a blockade against Taiwan, which it sees as an the renegade province, and then US tries to run it. This is totally realistic, just look at the Mission statement of the US Navy:

The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President.

The US has a dubious history of giving the wrong signals for countries (just like Saddam's Iraq before it's invasion of Iraq) and hopefully China won't fall for this, even if Trump would send the wrong signals to it (look do whatever you want with Taiwan). And anyway, any kind of blockade has the possibility of things getting out of control and warships being sunk.

This is something that now could happen in Venezuela, where after sinking "narcoterrorist" speed boats the next vessels the US Navy could be sinking are the ships of the Venezuelan Navy now escorting the oil tankers. Then we'll see if the Trump is again the TACO he has been.

Russia prepared intensively for 8 years to cut industrial ties with the rest of Europe and it had the backing of China to accomplish that. — boethius

Do you references to this?

So, is your hypothesis that the US could just flip a switch and not only stop trading with China but potentially the whole of East-Asia? Or then that the US is now pursuing creating full redundancy and that will be ready in X amount of time and then the blockade will occur. — boethius

One sunk US aircraft carrier, or an other major surface combatant sunk, would be enough to give the US a "Pearl Harbour"-moment, and then any economic ties to China are totally irrelevant.

Oh, you don't have the low price gadgets from China? You don't have the latest chips from Taiwan? You have a recession and supply difficulties as international trade shuts down? Big deal. Increased arms manufacturing takes care of the recession. That ordinary people have to tighten their bealts? People have seen and done that, when it's wartime.

Russia gives a great example of this. If a state commits to war, economic hardships don't matter. They start only to matter when there literally isn't enough food around and people starve. The fallacy here is that Americans can get bored about war in Vietnam or in Afghanistan. Yet that's not the same as if they feel that they are attacked by a true rival like China.

So you're right, the US bought a cold war for itself, not with a hawkish post-war stance, but with the decision to use atomic bombs on Japan. — frank

Yep. I'd put the emphasis on "Cold" part.

Indeed only because of nuclear weapons did the US and Soviet Union have so little amount of armed skirmishes. Otherwise it likely would have been the US and Soviet Union having many limited conflicts, at least, just like France and the UK had these colonial wars all around the World before. Now the conflicts were usually fought with proxies.

Only now Pakistan and India have shown that two nuclear armed countries can have conventional, but limited armed clashes without the conflict escalating to a nuclear war (something they have done now twice). Something similar happened between the US and Soviet Union only during the Korean War in the "Mig Alley".

(Only know we have the real picture)

This was a clear case. Thanks for the time to explain and give the reasons. Far better than just to say "banned for homophobia".

I completely disagree. If someone is arrested on false grounds they have had their freedom removed. If you had to spend the night in a cell, and suffer the indignation of being hauled away, then I think this is a major issue. — I like sushi

I agree with this, so I think you aren't getting my point here. Or do you consider that a sentence on false grounds is less of a breach of one's freedoms? I don't think so.

Not taking this seriously can lead to people being arrested on trumped up charges simply because there is a political motive to do so. That the conviction goes through is way worse, but the root of the problem lies in false arrest rather than false prosecution. — I like sushi

Again, I'm not saying here that we shouldn't take arrests on false charges seriously.

This happened due to social media. When I was growing up and you heard of this or that crime being committed the identity of the perpetrators were kept mostly out of the public eye. The world has changed, that is all. — I like sushi

I agree with this.

I assume that now simply the incitement toward hate crimes (or something equivalent to it) is extremely easy to make and thanks to the vitriolic discourse in the social media, people participate in the social media can be judged then on incitement. One real cause is the lack of refereeing: if someone has for example here on PF such opinions that can be seen as incitement, they will be quickly banned. Earlier when public discourse was in the opinion pages of newspapers, there were the referees of the paper itself on just what was published.

The whole notion that opposition to immigration, or transgenderism, or Islam, is per se wrong, is a classically liberal position. In our day and age the problems with liberalism are becoming increasingly obvious, and the ruling class in Europe is slow to admit this. — Leontiskos

I think here you are mixing liberal idealism and practical statecraft and thus argue that liberalism hinders the latter. Even now in laws we universally do have things like martial law in a case of hostile attack, which hinder dramatically the liberal freedoms we have in peacetime. Thus liberal democracies are totally capable and do have legislation that basically is illiberal.

We have representational democracy (and yes, career politicians running it) to solve these political problems, be they ideological or moral.

The US also has laws against incitement; the difference is only with regards to hate speech.

I say this because some posters are saying that in the US you couldn't be arrested for a "mean tweet" but in fact if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

This is quite hypocritical, because burning down hotels is basically terrorism, and the US has very harsh legislation against terrorism and even performs extrajudicial actions when it comes to terrorism. The US can kill and has killed it's own citizens, even under aged ones, without any trial or legislative process, but by a decision by the US President. And this was totally accepted even before Trump defined drug smugglers to be "narcoterrorists" and disregarded even the laws of war while killing them.

In fact during the War on Terror, legal experts in my country noticed that giving financial aid to terrorist organizations gave far longer sentences than murdering several people (committing an act of terrorism itself). This because the US insisted that countries would have similar legislation it had on this subject and Finland complied with this.

Yet of course, for totally similar actions, people won't be giving a sentence for of hate speech in the US.

Hence it's whimsical to argue that the US would uphold a justice state more than the European countries. It would be similar to arguing that except for Scotland, because Scotland does have the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 while England and Wales have no laws against hate crimes directly, the UK doesn't convict people because of hate speech.

This is precisely the point Rowan Atkinson was making. It is not credibility to the system if someone is falsely arrested. Someone should not be arrested for such acts in the first place. — I like sushi

People shouldn't get falsely arrested. Yet actually convictions are where the actual issue lies. Anyone can make claims that this or that person's public views are basically hate speech etc. First level is if someone takes this to court or a prosecutor makes a case of it. The real issue is there is if someone gets a conviction. Just like Trump is now behaving by going after people he doesn't like, many of these cases have been thrown out of court.

The Telegraph revealed last month that a unit in Whitehall was keeping tabs on people who complained online about the UK’s unfair justice system, in case this “exacerbated tensions.” A leaked government report from early this year also warns that those who are concerned about two-tier policing feed into an “extreme right-wing narrative.”

I think this started in the UK with the grooming gang scandal. If it happened earlier, please let me know.

The solution to this is simply transparency: never, ever hide the statistics or the ethnicity of convicted felons. Do not give an impression that you are hiding something, nothing erodes public trust more and gives credibility to issues like. Also treating ethnic groups differently, if they react differently to arrests etc. is a very bad strategy.

Just to give an example of how political leadership can dismantle political landmines: When Finland closed totally it's border with Russia and stopped to follow the earlier guidelines on treating asylum seekers as before, several legal experts raised questions of this going against the current laws. The Prime Minister simply acknowledged this indeed "this was very problematic", yet that national security overrode this. The Russian intelligence services were actively pushing undocumented immigrants to the border (something that was extremely easy to verify from interviewing the immigrants) and making a "hybrid attack" in this way, which everybody understood. There was no criticism from EU, which understood the situation.

This is perhaps something that many politicians don't understand: you have to talk about the actual problems and difficulties and especially not give some fringe group to be the only one noting the issue, be they on the right or the left. If you simply refuse to admit there is no issue, this only gives credibility to the fringe group, which likely has utterly destructive and self-defeating extremist answers to handle complex policy issues (like we see now in Germany, where the ADF is pushing to divide German citizens to a two-tier standard).

Why? People are falsely arrested in other countries too. — I like sushi

Arrests are one thing, convictions are another. I think the question is if in the UK these arrests/convictions are multiple times more than in other OECD countries.

Individual cases don't tell so much. There can be these "accusations of a horse being gay"-incidents or something. These are the incidents Elon Musk fills his X to bash the Starmer administration. Individual cases yet tell only so much as you can obviously find them everywhere. For example one ex-minister of justice in Finland was accused of hate speech when she referred quotes from the Bible. Yet the case was immediately dismissed by judge, which brought credibility to the system.

The British example is indeed interesting.

Naturally this question is about the various hate speech laws or in the UK case, similar laws and the implementation of these laws, which are various in the UK (starting from legislation like the Football Offences Act of 1991, which prohibits indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches). The ordinary type of libel suits that happen between individuals isn't here the focus. People participating in public and political discourse is the real issue here.

It is not a new thing. People have been arrested for doign next to nothing many times in the UK. — I like sushi

This seems a bit odd to (us) foreigners, who don't know so well the UK legal system and the actual practices.

One simple reason can be that the UK police simple focuses far more on social media/public speech than other countries and is far more active in going after for example "hate speech" than in other countries. Then the UK has for example Extremism Analysis Unit in the Home Office, that surveys Social Media. Anti-terrorism or simply going after football hooligans can create an environment where the police and intelligence authorities keep large databases and simply follow activities in a far more broader scope than in other countries. As the UK has had it's share of terrorism, this is totally understandable.

Here I think it's very important that authorities aren't biased in the surveillance of different extremists. For example the US authorities like the FBI were quite impartial (prior to Trump and Kash Patel etc) and went on to survey everybody, be it right-wing extremists or left-wing radicals, everybody from animal rights activists to pro-life groups attacking abortion clinics or white power groups.

This actually works, because In my view real damage happens when it is the perceived or actual is biased with differential treatment. What is essential is usually in these cases is transparency on the actions that the security establishment does.

But I'd gladly hear opinions or comments from Britons themselves here.

Ok but it has been the case for decades now that democracy hasn't delivered governments that align with the will of the people on key issues, immigration of course being the prime example. — ChatteringMonkey

In the Nordic countries this isn't the case.

The change in immigration policies is obvious and the change has been done for example in Sweden by the Social Democrats themselves. Danish and Finnish immigration has been limited also. Basically Europe isn't Angela Merkel's Europe anymore, but naturally the populists keep totally silent about this and portray there to be rampant totally unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries to Europe.

Immigration to Sweden: Notice the trend after 2017.


The only possible way to make a forecast that Sweden is becoming Muslim is simply to extrapolate the trend that ended in 2017 and assume similar (50 000 or more) refugees coming to Sweden. Because otherwise you simply don't get a 8% - 10% minority to grow to become the majority as forecasting several generations into the future is very difficult.

After WWII certain factions from the right have been systematically excluded from public debate and political power. — ChatteringMonkey

If we talk about fascists and authoritarian parties, certainly. And for a reason. Otherwise I think that the left is far too eager to paint nearly in the right to be part of the "extreme-right".

In my view, the basic problem is that populism emphasizes the "us-them" dichotomy, increases political polarization and basically opposes democracy. Why?Accusing a certain group of people being The argumentation is that democracy has lead to "the elite" to control, and this can be only replaced by strong leaders and a new elite made up by the populists themselves. Hence political corruption isn't fought against transparency and reinforcing the institutions, but with a populist takeover lead by a strong leader.

The irony of then Russian propaganda talking about the loss of freedom of speech in the EU. Remembering just how many reporters have been killed in Russia, in a country where simply saying a war being a war can get you jailed, for starters...

Should the EU split up. There will be hybrid war with each individual country with the intention of installing Russia friendly governments, to further destabilise the block. — Punshhh

Exactly.

Every European country, be it Germany, France or Luxembourg, is vis-a-vis weaker to Russia. Thus Putin's Russia desires this outcome so eagerly.

Since we are, if not directly at war with Russia, at least supporting the party that is at war with Russia, Russia is perceived to be the enemy. And since they are the enemy, supporting a goal that is aligned with the goals of Russia is often perceived as a kind of treason. — ChatteringMonkey

Basically this is totally similar to the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Yet even then, as Western allies were democracies, those speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union and praising it were tolerated. They weren't traitors as there was no actual war, only a Cold War. A functioning democracy is able to withstand the propaganda of those that are hostile against it. It comes with free speech. It truly has to become outright slander and threats against people or individuals were we have to draw the line just where free speech ends and what are open threats and defamation.

And needless to say, many leftists even some older PF members, who were (are) Marxists, but did criticize even back the Soviet Union. Yet there were many of those leftists that saw Marxism-Leninism as the way forward also for the West-European countries and who saw nothing bad in the Soviet Union and saw it as a victim. That these parties are people got money from the Soviet Union was hardly a surprise to anyone. What then has changed?

What is laughable is when the populists that are in power claim that they are for free speech, because they openly attack anybody that is against what they themselves say. Hence it's no surprise just how low Hungary or the US are in the indexes when it is about the freedom of the press.



The US in place 57, Victor Orban's Hungary at 68.

I object to the framing that anyone who wants to get rid of the EU is one the side of Putin. — ChatteringMonkey

"Now usually" doesn't mean the same as "anyone".

I've been myself a eurosceptic before, but especially after Brexit, the dissolution of EU doesn't make much sense. Criticism about the EU has existed far more longer than the present era, naturally. And criticism of the present is a healthy important part in a democracy, especially if it is constructive and helpful.

This is a tactic that has been shown to been dangerous and contra-productive, for instance in the case of immigration where any discussion of the topic has for the longest time been made virtually impossible because of various accusations of racism, fascism or Nazism and the like as soon as the issue was brought up. — ChatteringMonkey

Wokeness is a perfect example of this also. But as @Punshhh said, that wasn't our intent.

Yet when two large countries basically make it policy to be against the EU and intervene in matters of the union members, it's noteworthy and shouldn't be disregarded. And likely the outcome is different than they anticipated. Europe has to stand up against this. It doesn't stand up if it does what the bullies want it to do.

Actually the Chinese learnt that this kind of "diplomacy" works against the objectives. From the 2010's until the early 2020's Chinese adapted a style of Wolf Warrior diplomacy, an inherently hostile, offensive and coercive style of diplomacy. It quickly backfired: basically the hostility just made US warnings about China more credible. Now you can see that China isn't hostile against the EU (and likely won't be so hostile towards Trumps administration after this NSS).

Of course this is now the standard rhetoric from Russia, the latest with Putin himself calling Eu leaders "little pigs/swines" alongside accusing of Biden “consciously” unleashing the war in Ukraine.

But then again, he has already said a long time that Russia is at war with NATO (and EU). Attacks on the EU will likely make EU like even more the EU... perhaps with the exception of the Greeks. Btw notice that Americans do like the EU, just as they approve helping Ukraine and don't have such love for Russia as the Trump administration has.

From 2025 polls:

good question. :grin: You can get a lot of Gill-bribes for the price of a tank. A dozen tanks might buy a fair bit of division/polarization. — jorndoe

That is the worrisome thing. Yet the case of Nathan Gill shows just how this works: Gill has publicly stated that he is for Ukraine and against the Russian invasion, but then did speak on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukrainians that bribed him. So a small bribe goes so far.

With others, those who are basically Western talking heads of Putin and reurgitate the Kremlin line and never, ever speak anything negative about Russia and Putin are obviously on the payroll. Perfect example of this is prof Jeffrey Sachs, who earlier was actually a professor focused on global poverty and now is a full on Kremlin spokesperson.

Yet what do you get with the big money? Already the White House has basically given Russia what was their main goal in their military doctrine and Russia is extremely happy with the National Security Strategy.

Seems like the Coalition of the willing works well as a supplement. — jorndoe

It's the result when the US abandons it's allies. Even if after Trump the democrats take power and steer back the US to the traditional alliances, the damage has been already done.

What Europe needs is a NATO without the US, and subsequently to dissolve the European Union.

That way countries can run their own affairs as they have successfully done for centuries, while still enjoying collective security. — Tzeentch

Doesn't make sense. What will happen that NATO without US will come closer to the EU. Already you have things like the European Defence Industry Program in the EU, which benefits hugely the NATO without the US. Then there's SAFE (Security Action for Europe), which even Canada has joined!

(Dec 1st,2025) Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced the conclusion of negotiations for Canada’s participation in SAFE – unlocking billions of dollars in potential defence opportunities for Canadian businesses. SAFE provides up to $244 billion in loans to EU Member States to support large-scale defence projects, including acquiring critical capabilities such as ammunition, missiles, drones, artillery systems, and infantry weapons. As all 27 EU Member States increase defence investments, greater cooperation on procurement opens massive new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers to build and export Canadian-made technologies and capabilities.

As EU countries strengthen their defence capabilities through SAFE, Canadian participation will give our defence industry expanded access to the European market, attract new reliable suppliers for the Canadian Armed Forces, and catalyse massive private investment in Canada – creating higher-paying careers, growing Canadian industries, and bolstering transatlantic defence readiness. With this agreement, Canada will become the only country outside of Europe with preferential access.

Many agree that the EU should be improved, be more transparent and seriously tackle corruption and bureacracy, yet those arguing for the dissolution of the European Union now usually are the Putinists.

It's a bit like with congress in the US, where de facto the president and his administration gets to decide for the most part and congress just approves things. The difference is that the president in the US is elected whereas the Commission is not. — ChatteringMonkey

Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares?



Secondly, if the Comissars are elected even nationally, the Comission isn't responsible to the. And just for what position are they electing?



Perhaps Estonians (1,37 million) can be happy that their former president is now (to the anger of Trump & Putin) the High Representative for EU, but would that position be decided by voters? Surely not.

The aid was not the most important part, it's the access to the free market that was very beneficial for them. — ChatteringMonkey

Yep. That's the intention in having the common market. It was also very beneficial to Germany. Countries that don't have competitive economies, it isn't so great.

I'm more than fine to respect the cultural heritage and sovereignity of the states where that makes sense. But I don't think it does make a lot of sense on foreign policy, certainly not when it pertains to geo-politics or international trade, because de facto the security and intelligence is already organisated on the supra-national level of NATO, or for trade in larger European trade-agreements. — ChatteringMonkey

It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision.

Things change. Percentage of world GDP goes down, debts go up... the US was already in the process of losing its position of global hegemon. At some point you have to face reality, the longer you deny it, the harder the fall. — ChatteringMonkey

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity.

I wonder just how much is the Kremlin budget for international bribes. It effects are quite awesome compared to constructing new tanks.

Actually the best understanding of the present National Security Strategy and the effects of it:



He also explains well just why US prosperity is dependent on the dollar being the reserve currency (and why this is related to the Superpower status that the US held) and how the NSS is chipping this away.

Or people simply who believe in the Putin-Trump world in their hate of modern democracies and liberalism. It's not about having access to unfettered news outlets, it's what you pick yourself you want to believe in. And you can do it, when you just repeat to yourself that everything is just propaganda.

Thus there's a huge amount of people that want to believe in that the US is responsible for this war. Or that Ukraine is an artificial country and ought to be part of Russia...

Something like the truth / actual reality isn't a problem for them.

Sure, it needs to be reformed ideally. But maybe it can't be reformed because of the forces that resist that or lack of consensus, and then it will probably have to go. My main issue is that the Commission has to much power, it should be under the Council and the Parliament which are more accountable to the people. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I support that my countries own parliament has power and that isn't given to the EU Parliament. Perhaps the problem is that the whole structure of EU is a bit difficult to grasp:



Behind the comission are the member states. Now, if you replace the member states directly with EU voters, then actually just how aloof will Brussels be then? Then they don't have to give a shit with the member states and just say that their power comes directly from the EU citizens.

Ok but this has very little to do with the monetary policies it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

A monetary union is 100% monetary policy. It's totally different thing from a risk point for a foreign investor to buy a Greek loan in Drachmas (with the threat of devaluation) than giving a loan to German with the Bundesbank behind the Deutsche Mark. This was the thinking when the monetary union happened and that lowered the interest rates considerably. That is something every person feels.

Yes, Poland has gotten aid, just as have the Southern countries.

Foreign policy was for the longest time not a European competency, but a competency of the members states, but then security and intelligence are for the most part dealt with within NATO etc. Again this is the point, that everything is splintered and spread over different levels of government while these things are related and should inform each other. The end result is that you basically just don't have a proactive and unified foreign policy. — ChatteringMonkey

EU member states are independent sovereign states with their own history, culture and sense of patriotism. You simply cannot deny this. EU will be, always, really a confederacy, not a federalist union. Sorry, but Finns will be Finns, Swedes will be Swedes and the French will be the French.

If we just assume we can replace this fact, we are lying to ourselves.

The only real way would be the English model of inventing "Britishness" and "being British" for being European. Hard thing to do and just making a flag and taking Beethoven's Ode to Joy to be the union anthem won't do it. But then to create that new sense of Europe, you would need people like Bismarck or Napoleon. I'm not sure I want that kind of EU. The democratic structures of the EU itself makes this impossible. We just have to understand our limitations and then build from there up.

Bureaucracy, especially because of its lack of accountability, tends to grow over time and develop its own internal logic and goals that aren't aligned with what benefits the people of the countries. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree with you. The real problem is that Brussels has copied the French way of bureaucracy. Basically the US administration would be far more transparent and open (now with Trump isn't). There are things to improve in the EU, but in my view these problems aren't so large that we have to do away with the EU altogether.

'm not sure you disagree with me here. The issue is that it takes away agency from countries to make their own policies so that they can react to their specific circumstances. For instance the austerity policy we had after the 2008 crisis was probably really bad for a lot of countries, it maybe really only made sense from a German perspective. — ChatteringMonkey

This is something that basically has to be viewed from country basis. In large, the EU practices do prevent totally reckless behavior, but then again especially when it comes to the large members, they do what they want. Yet joining the EU has done wonders to some countries. The perfect example was the economic growth of Poland compared to Ukraine as both countries started from a similar level once the Soviet system collapsed.



No wonder Ukraine and Ukrainians have wanted to be in the EU sphere, btw.

Yeah I fundamentally disagree with this. It only works, especially for strategic sectors and resources, if you assume everything will go well for the rest of time and countries will keep having good enough relations going forward. It's fragile and temporary.

And I think it's naïve to think that would be the case, because we know from history that geo-politics is a ruthless game that won't go away.

Maybe some amount of interdependence is unavoidable, I would agree with that, but the issue is that the balance is totally skewed so that the US and China have a lot of leverage over us while we have little leverage over them. — ChatteringMonkey

I think Europe simply underestimates how much leverage it has, because seldom it acts as a solid block. In the end, it's a confederacy of independent states. Only someone like Putin threatening us can bring us together.

There's the classic quote from Kissinger: "If I want to talk to Europe, where do I call?".

In security issue it has been actually Washington earlier. But now I guess Trump is disgusted to speak on the phone about European issues.

The decision process is very slow and cumbersome, and also lacks democratic accountability. — ChatteringMonkey

Ah yes, the bureaucracy. I think the US has a lot of it too, actually.

Another 'mistake' is the monetary union that took away the power from the states to have their own monetary policies that suited their situation, and was very bad for the likes of Greece for instance. — ChatteringMonkey

First of all, not all EU countries are in the monetary union. It wasn't only UK that was out of the euro, just look how many EU countries have still their own currencies (the map has non-EU countries too, but anyway):



There are true benefits with the monetary union, not just that it has made travel more easy. First of all, one notable aspect has been that the interest rates of small countries like Greece and Finland came down as there wasn't anymore the "country risk". When we had our Finnish 'markka' as our currency, in the 1990's economic depression we had interest rates in the 12%-14%. So basically at better times the country risk meant that the interest rates came down 5%-7% at least. That's something of a benefit that many ordinary people have gotten. This also meant that irresponsible countries like Greece could take loans and create a debt bubble and when that burst, we had the Greek crisis.

Basically the euro acts in the euro zone as a gold standard. If you have a poor economy that performs badly, you get shafted as you cannot devalue your currency. Yet the ability of devaluation supports only a segment of the economy, those in the export industries. Usually the inflation devaluation creates eats the positive effects quickly away.

And look, the biggest selling point, aside from it being a force for peace within Europe, was its free internal market and the economic prosperity that would bring. Maybe that was true for some time, but now we have to conclude that the European economy isn't doing that great. We basically missed the whole digitalisation/AI train, aren't creating any new companies that can compete on the world stage, and are even loosing more and more existing industries we used to be world-leaders in. — ChatteringMonkey

One can argue that perhaps the EU has been too lax in giving US firms this playground of ours freely. Usually any European company trying to get into the US market will face the "not invented here, not from here" treatment. Especially now they will feel the wrath of Trump.

Yet the whole 400 million people single market and union is not at all anything similar to the 300+ million US market. First of all, there is the language barrier, even if we talk as a second language (at least) English. Then, moving from Finland to Spain isn't something like moving from Minnesota to Florida (even if Minnesotans and Floridians might think otherwise). The European single market is still a divided market based on totally natural issues. It isn't the language barrier, it's also the culture barrier. We are independent sovereign countries with their own cultures and history. That isn't going anywhere.

If you find yourself utterly dependent on other countries for your security, for your energy and natural resources, and more and more for basically most of your goods production and digital services, then something has gone wrong right? — ChatteringMonkey

You haven't then planned for any crisis and certainly not for war time if you have problems when a war or a pandemic erupts.

But let's think about what you just said.

Let's take UK as an example. When was the last time that England/Scotland and Whales could feed their populations with just the food they produced on their island?

Perhaps in the Bronze Age. The UK only came close to self sufficiency during in the Napoleonic Wars with intense focus on bringing agriculture to speed, but once industrialization kicked up for real, there was no way for the UK to feed itself without depending on international trade. This is simply a law of economics: when the city of Rome in Antiquity had 1 million inhabitants, the whole Italian Peninsula didn't produce enough to feed 1 million: it had to rely on exports from North Africa. With a city like London, this was true for the UK centuries after. Hence with a larger and stronger submarine force in WW1 or WW2, the would have been starvation and famine in the British Isles during the wars. Hence the need for a strong navy.

The fact is that our prosperity today is based on globalization. How utterly dependent are we of other countries? Utterly dependent is my answer. The real answer here is just to be independent ENOUGH for the time when that pandemic / war / asteroid strike / supervolcano eruption hits and erases the global trade system for a while.

The idea of total self-dependence sounds reasonable at first for the ignorant, but is a huge disaster if really taken as economic policy.

Hire Ukraine as a European defense force against Putin's Russia, give them what they need; at least they'd act (they've converted Russoboats to submarines before). ;) — jorndoe

I think that has already happened. (The what they need part is still the problem)

Notice the arrangement in this photo: Zelensky and Merz together on one side negiotiating with the Americans on the other side. Sometimes a picture tells more than a thousand words.

Ukraine is already the active defense of Europe against Russian hostility and imperialism. As it has been commented Alexander Stubb, the Finnish President saying, "We cannot leave Zelensky alone with the Americans in the negotiating table". Well, Merz didn't leave Zelensky alone with the Trump people, as the picture shows.

What is positive is that the EU has now evaded the pitfall that Trump can get his hands on the Russian frozen assets cookie jar and pro-Russian government in the EU can make things worse.

(CNN, Dec 12th 2025) The European Union on Friday indefinitely froze Russia’s assets in Europe to ensure that Hungary and Slovakia, both with Moscow-friendly governments, can’t prevent the billions of euros from being used to support Ukraine.

Using a special procedure meant for economic emergencies, the EU blocked the assets until Russia gives up its war on Ukraine and compensates its neighbor for the heavy damage that it has inflicted for almost four years.

EU Council President António Costa said European leaders had committed in October “to keep Russian assets immobilized until Russia ends its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates for the damage caused. Today we delivered on that commitment.”

The union was successful in preventing intra-European war, and that was a fine idea at the time, but its disfunctions and those of liberalism become clearer with the day. — ChatteringMonkey

It's a fine idea EVEN NOW. Never underestimate the importance of this. Just like with NATO, which has Article 1 and when the armed forces train together, operate together and make their warplans together, it's not just words on paper. As I've said again and again, without NATO I bet we would have seen perhaps a couple of border wars between Greece and Turkey. Without NATO/EU, there might be tension between Hungary and Romania too.

The real "dysfunction" has been the immigration policy, which de facto lead to UK to leave the union and have it's disastrous Brexit, which showed to every EU country extremely clearly how leaving the union would an absolute disaster in economic terms. Hence immigration, not economics, has been the real issue that has giving strength to the anti-EU anti-immigration populists.

But many Americans, including the Trump team, have not noticed the change that has happened. It hasn't been JUST Hungary, it's now been many countries like Greece, Poland and, heck, my own country, that have not let asylum seekers and immigrants inside. We have shut down the border with Russia: nobody except wildlife is crossing the border now and that's hard even to them in the south, because there's a long fence there now. This policy change was implemented also by the world hugging, climate change conscious, multicultural social democrats, so the idea that to change immigration policy you have to start supporting far-right populist is bonkers.

But if the US wants to support the "MAGA-revolution" and really entangles itself in domestic politics of EU countries, you will get a response you likely didn't anticipate. You'll just end Pax Americana and destroy your own position as the pack leader.

It think this runs a lot deeper ideologically than people think. For a number of reasons that may be a bit much to expand on here, liberalism is waning and will continue to do so. The US will not get back to 'normal', this process will only get more pronounced as the younger generations come of age and come into power. — ChatteringMonkey

When there in their sixties and seventies, yes. The American voters are far too enthusiastic to choose octogenarians to the places of power. And stagnant political systems as the US system is also

But I tend to agree with this. Yet it isn't just liberalism (being replaced by crony-capitalism), but basically the collapse democratic structures of the Republic also. The Trump administration is simply just one long constitutional crisis and people are Ok with it, or simply passive about it. This is a real lurch to something that has been commonplace in Latin America.

It will erode if Europe sticks to liberalism and the current form of the EU. — ChatteringMonkey

Europe will likely stick to the rules based international order and liberalism, hence it will be an ideological nemesis towards American right-wing populism of the MAGA-movement. Hence it's no wonder that the Trump administration is so eager to get right-wing populist into power in Europe to dismantle the EU. I believe that Trump, as the ignorant idiot he is, truly thinks that the EU was formed to compete with the US. This ignorant view I guess can be popular in the US and the real reason, the two absolutely catastrophic World Wars that killed tens of millions of Europeans, is totally sidelined. Yet when you actually read the history, the actual reasons are obvious. Think just why the integration process in the Shuman declaration, was started from steel and coal production.

Now for those that don't know this, here's part of the actual text of the French foreign minister Shuman declaration from 1950, which started the European integration process:

World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

Hence the regulation/supervision of coal and steel production meant that either side could not just start to rearm itself.

Yes, that is a possibility and the U.S. is now untrustworthy. But with Democrats in office they would not likely pull out of NATO and by the time of the following term (6years from now) the war will be over, Russia will be contained, Europe will have re-armed. — Punshhh

Yet the real tragedy is that in my view Atlanticism, the security arrangement between North America and Europe, has truly worked well and given us peace in Western Europe. There was no reason for this tie to be uncut as Trump is now doing.

This has been the real difference between the US and any other Great Power in history: the US did take into account European needs, was from the start positive about European integration, which then made Western Europe to align with the US voluntarily. Actions like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift did have a huge impact. The inability to understand that this has been extremely beneficial to the US as Western European countries accepted the leadership role of the US. Now that leadership role is rapidly dismantled by the catastrophic actions of Trump.

Just compare this to the Warsaw Pact, which was basically there to keep the Soviet satellites in order and under control of the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact did perform this well (in 1956 and in 1968) and continued until Gorbachev era... when the system totally collapsed. No former Warsaw Pact member wanted to continue a security treaty with Russia. They ALL sought safety from NATO, just as non-aligned countries like mine and Sweden finally did after Putin's large scale attack into Ukraine.

Now basically the US has changed it's approach and treats Europe as a problem, is overtly hostile towards European integration and acts more like it acts towards it's backyard, Latin America and the Caribbean. Yet European countries aren't similar to Latin America: they aren't poor countries, two of them are nuclear powers. But they will get the message.

Real enemies of the US like China and Russia simply cannot believe their luck, I guess.

* * *

About the Trump - peace process, Garry Kasparov puts it aptly:

These fake peace plans represent a full year of fake negotiations coordinated by Russia and Trump’s WH to prevent and delay stronger action by Europe. Their only real negotiations were in private, over how to profit after dismembering Ukraine.