Ukraine Crisis

ssu

This doesn't seem to be, as is often the case, a conflict between America and Europe; but appears to be a fundamental rupture. — Benkei

Nobody officially wants to talk about this, but it's obvious that now the security environment of Europe is rapidly changing. Trump is really doing a monumental change in Europe as many countries have truly rested their defense and security on NATO and international cooperation.

Just as Trump doesn't have a clue on the Palestinian history of the "Naqba", he doesn't understand that many Palestinians were fooled to seek refuge somewhere else as the war (of 1948) was fought and thought they could come back as the fighting has ended. Since Trump has confused the Baltic and the Balkans, thought that Finland is part of Russia etc, it's no wonder that he can come up with such delusional ideas as the Mar-a-Gaza solution. And similarly he can easily think that there's no problem with him and Vlad having a chat on what sphere belongs to whom. Why would he care about territorial sovereignty, about the little countries in Europe? After all, likely he doesn't know what Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant for many countries. Hence when Trump in Saudi-Arabia decides things with his friend, Putin, and then (likely) announces the things for Ukraine to take it or be the real problem in the conflict, he likely won't understand what this will mean.

In fact, your country is the perfect example of this, because for Netherlands Atlanticism and the EU have been the cornerstone of your defense policy. The country has solely relied on NATO even with being surrounded by allies all around and this has been in historical terms a very peculiar arrangement, where sovereign states have voluntarily given their defense policy to a treaty pact. Yet it still during the Cold War Netherlands a large army and conscription. (And actually still have the latter, even if after 1997 the compulsory requirement for conscription has ended.) 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.

Meanwhile, Trump’s followers seem to idolize him, but he is proving to be an exceptionally weak leader and a shitty negotiator. — Benkei

Remember Brexit. The British are usually sane and informed people, aren't they? At least more informed than the average American (people here are far more informed). Yet Brexit happens and the Brexiteers were cheering for all that freedom they would enjoy after breaking the shackles of Brussels. Same as with the Brexiteers: do they care about the real negotiations and the real economy going south? Nope! They are mesmerized from the fact that Brexit went through. And so does Trump's second term look for the Trumpists. Trump is a cult. You have now freed Jan 6th rioters telling that they will die for Trump, if they have to. Every negative thought or remark is just Trump derangement syndrome.

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. — Benkei

Yep. Russia will be on the roll when Trump puts them on that course.

Benkei

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.

Mikie

↪ssu

↪Benkei

↪Tzeentch

Interesting and well-written perspectives? What’s the thread coming to?

Anyway — how seriously do we take anything Trump says? Words and posturing matter, given the US’s stature, but I can’t see Trump allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory and permanently shelving NATO membership — which is likely be non-negotiable aspects of any settlement. Hegseth has asked already walked back statements re: NATO.

neomac

because it would create our own military industrial complex, I changed my opinion in this very thread 3 years ago — Benkei

Precisely… but you must change you opinion once more. Indeed, there are all sorts of moral hazards that are inherent to accepting a military industrial complex: like POLITICAL HAWKISHNESS, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, SELLING WEAPONS IN CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD, COVERT OPERATIONS, BEING EXPOSED TO AND ACCUSED OF SECURITY PROVOCATIONS, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL MILITARIZATION OF THE SOCIETY (people need to be able to sacrifice their lives if needed, and kill other lives), USING PEOPLE AS CANNON FODDER, RISK TO COMMIT OR GET INVOLVED IN ALLEGED OR ACTUAL WAR CRIMES, MAKING NUCLEAR THREATS.
Sure you can morally stomach a military industrial complex?

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

A EU military/army and home nuclear deterrence are a greater risk than US-led NATO for Russia, obviously. In history Europeans have invaded Russia, the US never did. And while the US can feel safe far from Russia, shift strategic focus elsewhere or withdraw from overstretching in Europe, Europeans can not afford the same. Besides while the US strategic interests where shifting toward China and the Pacific, the NATO financing for the European security was decreasing (https://www.nato.int/docu/review/images/66d708_2_grand_nato-canada-fm-1989-to-2022e_nato_article.jpg).
If the US has no reason to support a European military and ESPECIALLY a competing European military industrial complex, even less has Russia that’s why interfering with European politics and find pro-Russian bootlickers in Europe is vital for Russia’s imperialism as much as building buffer states.

Arcane Sandwich

HAWKISHNESS — neomac

To me that sounds like being a hawk. It's like the essence of what hawks are.

ssu

Russia has released 1 or 2 American prisoners. — BitconnectCarlos

Don't forget that Putin said that he wouldn't have invaded Russia if Trump would have been POTUS. (If you believe that, I guess you're the someone that people should sell real estate in Florida...)

I have no issue with Ukraine defending their borders, but it was getting quite expensive for us here in the US. I don't mind if Europe picks up the slack on the funding. The conflict seems fairly far removed from us here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Europe seems fairly far removed removed from you there.

If Mexico or Canada were to join an anti-US alliance or if Russia were to station its troops in either of those two border countries it would be alarming so their concern is understandable. Europe should be able to hand this one. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, so when you would have Russian forces on your borders, that would be alarming for you. So I guess not much else would alarm you. Only then it would be useful to find somewhere the old and dusty WARPLAN RED for invading Canada.

Let's think about this from another angle. So you've been with someone for many decades and find that actually, you want some space, need to go alone for a while and be on your own. Now what do you call it? I guess the term usually used would be 'brake up'. Fine, these things happen. Yet, do you really think that it won't have an effect on your relationship with this someone? Everything will be just fine and dandy like this. Or if you would need this someone, she or he will be there to continue as if nothing happened.

Simply put it: appeasing your enemies that think you are an existential threat for them and then bitching to your allies and telling they don't matter and you aren't going to be there for them, simply isn't a winning strategy. Just why emboldening your enemies and alienating your friends will work, I don't know.

Yet I guess it works well when you have the right mix of delusional aspirations and ignorance.

ssu

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

EU isn't part of NATO. Remember Ireland and Austria, Benkei. And Sweden and Finland haven't been long in

And even EU might be far too cumbersome. The European family is just too big to work as a team. There will be always some country like Hungary or whatever, that swims in the other direction. Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. NATO countries around the Baltic and the North Sea would be a great start.

Like we, uh, actually have already where both of our countries are operating: the JEF

The JEF is a coalition of ten like-minded nations (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK), comprising high readiness forces configured to respond rapidly to crises. It can integrate into larger international operations such as those led by NATO, the UN or other security coalitions and can conduct the full spectrum of operations. It enhances the deterrence messaging of NATO and provides agile, credible and capable forces in support of JEF Participant Nation interests.

Basically JEF was a move to make non-NATO Sweden and Finland to co-operate in the defense of the Baltics, yet the emphasis should be in creating deterrence, not having a forum to talk. There are enough of those. Like minded nations is the key. What actual important player missing is Poland, because Poland is going to have one serious military in the future. France and Germany? Well, the EU has been lead by those two nations and Germany seems not to capable of taking defense seriously.

Others? Now I don't have anything Spain or Spaniards and well understand that the security environment next to the volatile North Africa put's Spains focus totally somewhere else. And it's understandable (as the country actually has territory in Africa).

neomac

To me that sounds like being a hawk. It's like the essence of what hawks are. — Arcane Sandwich

Not sure what you are talking about. To me, "hawkishness" in foreign policy roughly refers to a tendency to favor military action or aggressive diplomacy, while "dovishness" leans towards diplomacy, negotiations, and peaceful solutions over military intervention. Claiming that the risk of having a military industrial complex is that, among others, you may have a "hawkish" lobby, is a fact. And facts as facts are neither "hawkishness" nor "dovish".

Arcane Sandwich

↪neomac

Nevermind, carry on.

neomac

There will be always some country like Hungary or whatever, that swims in the other direction. Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. NATO countries around the Baltic and the North Sea would be a great start. — ssu

That would sound more promising. But once NATO is gone without being replaced by some comparable EU collective defence, not sure if the EU will survive. Imagine if countries like Hungary or whatever that swim in the other direction, will continue to do it also over security matters e.g. by hosting Russian military bases.

ssu

Interesting and well-written perspectives? What’s the thread coming to?

Anyway — how seriously do we take anything Trump says? Words and posturing matter, given the US’s stature, but I can’t see Trump allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory and permanently shelving NATO membership — which is likely be non-negotiable aspects of any settlement. Hegseth has asked already walked back statements re: NATO. — Mikie

Which btw just shows how poor Hegseth is as secretary of defense as first impressions matter. That your first thing you say to NATO members you have to walk back tells a lot. But perhaps it's the genius of Trump. Maybe Trump just wants his underlings to parrot his talking points... perhaps make them more coherent and thoughtful.

Yet the damage is done. Hardly anyway now to think that this card, possible Ukraine NATO option, could be put on the table again. Why it was so damning, to say that Ukraine won't be a member state, is because it goes against the idea of NATO's article 10:

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Any European State ought to be capable of joining if it meets the criteria. Already from article 10 we can see that it's really complicated for Ukraine to become a member, but saying it aloud is just giving Putin what he wants.

You might think that this is a tiny issue. It isn't, it truly isn't.

When Putin demanded that Russia ought to have a say what members are accepted to NATO and what not, that was the red line for Finland. By this demand Putin put Finland to immediately to start the process of joining NATO membership and Finland pushed also to Sweden to seek the membership. And it went through the Parliament with vast majority once the conventional invasion of Ukraine started.

You see, we were happy to wiggle around without being in NATO and having only an option to join NATO. Give us a space to wiggle, we Finns will wiggle, but take that wiggle space away and put us into a corner, we are far worse than the famous cornered rat. Ask Stalin how annoying we can be. With this demand Putin only showed the corner and that was enough for the Finnish leadership.

Perhaps politicians will not take seriously everything what Trump say, but they simply cannot think that it's all ~~bullsh~~ 4D-Chess playing. Perhaps Trump just wanted to give the middle finger to outgoing Trudeau with his talk of Canada become part of the US. But those kinds of "gestures" do have effects. There is a reason for diplomats being "diplomatic".

That would sound more promising. But once NATO is gone and won't be replaced by some comparable EU collective defence, not sure if the EU will survive. Imagine if countries like Hungary or whatever that swim in the other direction, will continue to do it also aver security matters e.g. by hosting Russian military bases. — neomac

Only Trump can really end NATO. I think Europeans have still a love affair with NATO and when Trump is against it and hates it, it will be there for the Europeans as this organization from a more peaceful past. Likely it will exist as an option, if the US notices the mistake it's making and will come back. But still, Trump hasn't left Europe.

What is likely to happen that Europe will rearm... with European arms. Likely event what Trump with all his hostility will make is that US arms industry will suffer a lot in the future. After all, the US cannot be trusted, so why would you then buy weapons from there?

But you are right that the way of appeasement might indeed what many countries will opt. Russia's objective is to have the ability to approach every European country individually as then it is in the position of strength. And that's why Putin absolutely hates the EU and NATO and the dissolution of the two is his goal.

Mr Bee

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. — Benkei

That is the only risk I see from all of this. I don't think Russia would invade NATO countries (but who knows given what Trump has done to it) but I do see a big risk of Putin going after the smaller former Soviet states, if only to save face.

That being said, the war ending is a good thing since this was realistically the only way it could've ended.

Tzeentch

↪Mikie

Walking back statements is indicative of the type of diplomatic tightrope the Trump administration is walking, but the fact that they're walking it at all suggests to me they are being sincere.

The point was to signal to Russia that their two preconditions to negotiations (no NATO membership for Ukraine and no return of territory) were on the table. That some poor schmuck has to walk it back infront of US allies and deal with the fallout is par for the course.

However, the US wants out while every day Ukraine's negotiating position gets worse. This means Moscow will be expecting a very favorable deal.

They have signalled they want a permanent settlement to the conflict, where they don't risk the next administration making another U-turn and things ending up in the same situation. This amounts to the US having to admit strategic defeat (in deed, if not in word).

Whether the Russians can be satisfied while also giving the US a way to save face is the big question here. Since the US isn't paying the price of failure (it is Ukraine), it is easy for them to walk away.

It's up to skilled diplomats to somehow square this circle.

The one thing that makes me hopeful is Trump's somewhat more friendly tone towards the Russians. Ironically I think the Russians are sensitive to the prospect of normal relations with the West.

A lifting of the sanctions and a resumption of the NordStream project are ideas that are being floated, and these things may be enough to get a concession out of the Russians elsewhere which would make a deal possible.

neomac

I've been mostly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia — BitconnectCarlos

If there is a geopolitical strategic ratio in Trump's policy toward Russia (besides taking a personal revenge on Zelensky), this is most likely to detach Russia from China and from EU and from Iran. Getting Russia to stabilize the middle east, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and curb Islamist ambitions may be worth sacrificing the Ukrainian national self-determination.

Far better is simply a loose but working coalition of countries. — ssu

Fusing defense industries would favour the rise of a military-industrial complex lobby which may be the necessary step to build a valid political and military deterrence against hostile powers. It’s also economically important to preserve a unite and dynamic market and technological development to compensate for the demographic and morale decay of spoiled Europeans.

ssu

Fusing defence industries would favour the rise of military-industrial complex lobby which may the necessary step to build a valid political and military deterrence against hostile powers. It’s also economically important to preserve a unite and dynamic market and technological development to compensate for the demographic and morale decay of spoiled Europeans. — neomac

And that's the issue that should be done. But there are good prospects for this. Assuming there's the will to do it. Just take for example drone warfare:

Europe has totally the ability to bypass American arms manufacturing and not be dependent on the whims of the American president.

neomac

↪ssu

:up:

BTW it seems to me that pro-Trump's propaganda is caught in some rhetoric conundrum: if Russia is no threat to Europe and ironically is looking forward to normalising relations with the West because the Russian red-line is just to cleanse and genocide the Ukrainians as some pro-Russian genocide apologists believe and justify ("it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests") :eyes: why do Europeans need to buy from the US defense industry or even be in charge of Ukraine sovereignty? If Trump wants to appease Russia, why can't Europeans do the same and gift whatever is left of Ukraine to Putin in exchange for resuming business? If the US can leave NATO, why Europeans can't join the BRICS?
If Russia is a threat, why should Europeans rely on the US for military assistance and weaponry which is something that can be withdrawn at some US president's whims to the point of even explicitly encouraging Russia to act more aggressively to establish its sphere of influence in Europe manu militari [1]? If Europeans have to turn into actual US bootlickers why can't they turn into Russia or Chinese bootlickers? We have plenty of anti-Americans that would rush into bootlicking Russia and China. Even in this thread.

[1] Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html). I'm sure the pro-Russian and pro-Trump idiots in this thread don't get the logic presupposition: if Russia IS NO THREAT to Europe independently from the US provocations Trumps' THREAT AGAINST Europe would make no sense.

neomac

The Western elan of exporting democracy and universal human rights to the Rest is transmogrifying more and more into importing authoritarianism and despise for universal human rights from the Rest. The irony.

ssu

The Western elan of exporting democracy and universal human rights to the Rest is transmogrifying more and more into importing authoritarianism and despise for universal human rights from the Rest. The irony. — neomac

I would correct that to "The American elan". The Republicans are happily cheering to this. They will remember things in democracy like the separation of powers and corruption only if a democrat is the President. As if they lacking any morals.

Seems that the dividing line starts to be Russia-Trump vs Ukraine & Europe.

Because it likely is worse than I thought.

jorndoe

The conflict seems fairly far removed from us here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

According to google, the distance between ...

Washington DC and Moscow    = 7817 km (4857 mi)
Washington DC and Kyiv      = 7828 km (4864 mi)
Washington DC and Jerusalem = 9490 km (5897 mi)

BitconnectCarlos

↪jorndoe

Fair point. I'm thinking though that the EU should be able to contain Russia. It can fund Ukraine as appropriate. It might actually be beneficial if the US can ease off pressure and be seen as a more neutral partner who can eventually broker a deal between the two. I couldn't have seen Russia brokering a deal with Biden given some of the things that he said.

Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China.

Metaphysician Undercover

Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China. — BitconnectCarlos

Distance from Moscow to Beijing: 5,793.80 km

Wayfarer

↪ssu

I’m wondering if the result of the US - Russia conference will amount to the US walking away from supporting Ukraine. The grounds will be a ‘peace’ proposal that Ukraine and Europe can’t accept, giving the US grounds for saying that they don’t want to end the war and it’s on their heads.

It’ll become clear soon enough.

neomac

I would correct that to "The American elan". — ssu

American acted as the Western leader. And no matter how blameful , ill-minded , and ominous the US look and looked to many, I would still insist that the strategic need to export "democracy", "universal human rights" and the rhetoric "the end of history" was integral part of the globalization project in which the German-led EU, China and Russia could prosper. The two sides of a coin. And we should never discount German-led EU, China and Russia agency in how things evolved.

Seems that the dividing line starts to be Russia-Trump vs Ukraine & Europe.

Because it likely is worse than I thought. — ssu

Perfectly in line with what I said 2 years ago:

Outside the EU (or some other form of federation) Europeans might go back to compete one another not only economically but also for security. And outside the US sphere of influence, we might compete not only with Russia, and China and other regional or global competitors, but also with the US. Good luck with that. — neomac

And 7 months ago:

Indeed, it’s funny to see this dude completely overlooking another hypothetical scenario which his guru Mearshaimer would likely support, and even Trump (his beloved American President) would arguably welcome: the scenario where the US reconciles with Russia to better contain China using Ukraine as a bargaining chip.

Now let’s consider a scenario where Russia:

- can be flattered by 2 great powers like China and the US,

- can experience a boost in its fuel and wheat exports (nurturing its power projection in all contended areas, including in Europe), even more so if Ukraine will completely surrender to Russia (something which is welcome because apparently Ukrainian lives matter to Trump voters! And it’s totally risk free and harmless for Europe because if Russia could blackmail EU for its fuel supply when Ukraine was NOT under its control, how could Russia blackmail EU for its fuel supply AND wheat supply when Ukraine is completely under its control ?)

- can enjoy free pass for expanding in North Africa and the Mediterranean (namely, ENCIRCLING EUROPE)

- can have UK+East Europeans locked in an anti-Russian stance due to their historical fear of Russian imperialism conveniently boosted by the US of course (Trump didn’t like North Stream 2, right? nor the German or European economy outperforming the American one, right?) and the rest of European countries with self-conceited anti-US/pro-Russian lackeys (replacing the pro-US lackeys’) as political oppositions or leaders

In this scenario, who doesn't give a fuck about Europeans to put their heads out of their ass more than Russia?

Not only Europe won’t get completely rid of the US but it would completely get split in smaller regional spheres of influence between the US and Russia (however not with the same antagonism as in the Cold War, at least as long as China remains the greatest security threat to both), and with no prospect of boosting their economy or army other than as a function of their hegemon’s interest (BTW I let you imagine how fantabulous is the prospect of experiencing an economic boost under far-right populist political elites when Russia is your hegemon, it’s enough to see the envious example of the ex-Soviet Union republics).
In a wonderful multipolar world, market/industry/technology inputs and outputs and commercial routes are under the political/military control of regional hegemonic powers, negotiating on trading conditions or imposing them for everybody else.

In short, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no way that Europeans simply chum up with Russia and economically profit from the conflict between China and the US, living in happiness, peace and bliss ever after. — neomac

ssu

I’m wondering if the result of the US - Russia conference will amount to the US walking away from supporting Ukraine. — Wayfarer

It can happen. Even is likely. At worst, Trump can walk out of NATO if he feels like it.

I think James Ker-Lindsay put it quite well.

Trump is lazy and intellectually lazy. He will want a deal quick and if it's then Ukraine saying no and Europeans saying something else, he might just walk away from everything. Personally I think Trump's fixation with Putin and his hate of woke Europeans will prevail. He truly doesn't see any importance at NATO. Trump is totally incapable of understanding that he is giving Americas foes the best birthday present ever by dismantling the Superpower status of the US.

Who are the foes and friends here is blurred with the Trump administration, because Trump himself doesn't think about the issue.

JD Vance's Trumpian speech at Munich, which likely was more for the Fox News listeners back at home, does show the rift here. That an administration which itself is banning the use of words and punishing organizations that don't use the term "Gulf of America" is here scolding and reprimanding of Europe and saying that Europe is forgetting free speech and that is a bigger threat than Russia. Or Pete Hegseth apparently totally incapable of answering a question if Russia also has to make concessions in the peace negotiations, but was quick to give away Ukraine's negotiating positions even before the negotiations is telling.

Echarmion

Trump is lazy and intellectually lazy. He will want a deal quick and if it's then Ukraine saying no and Europeans saying something else, he might just walk away from everything. Personally I think Trump's fixation with Putin and his hate of woke Europeans will prevail. He truly doesn't see any importance at NATO. Trump is totally incapable of understanding that he is giving Americas foes the best birthday present ever by dismantling the Superpower status of the US. — ssu

I think it's more than just laziness. The entire behaviour of this US government seems to be purposefully geared to undermine collective security. You can callously throw an ally under the bus behind closer doors. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting a spotlight on how they simply do not care.

Which is in line with the domestic political policy, particularly via DOGE. The policy is not one of reform, it's one of revolution. And it's possible the people who provide the philosophical underpinnings of this revolution (who do not include Trump himself) do not actually envision rebuilding any of the things that are being torn apart.

RogueAI

↪Wayfarer

I think there are still enough votes in Congress to authorize more aid to Ukraine.

neomac

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/ai-driven-russian-disinformation-campaign-targets-german-elections/

neomac

Remember those in this thread (but also outside) who were whining over Biden's support of the Ukrainian neo-nazis? How silent they were/are about the support of the European neo-nazis by Putin and, now, also by Trump. The irony.

Wayfarer

I think there are still enough votes in Congress to authorize more aid to Ukraine. — RogueAI

Congress has not uttered a squeak about anything Trump has done since the election. Not a word, not a raised eyebrow. If Trump says jump, their only response will be How high?

neomac

I think it's more than just laziness. The entire behaviour of this US government seems to be purposefully geared to undermine collective security. You can callously throw an ally under the bus behind closer doors. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting a spotlight on how they simply do not care.

Which is in line with the domestic political policy, particularly via DOGE. The policy is not one of reform, it's one of revolution. And it's possible the people who provide the philosophical underpinnings of this revolution (who do not include Trump himself) do not actually envision rebuilding any of the things that are being torn apart. — Echarmion

It's very much in line with the Miran plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miran
“In December 2024, president-elect Donald Trump named Miran as his nominee for chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.”

“How can the U.S. get trading and security partners to agree to such a deal? First, there is the stick of tariffs. Second, there is the carrot of the defense umbrella and the risk of losing it. ”
https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf?bsft_eid=a30f775d-a95b-4704-ba5b-9fcd5291f465&bsft_clkid=d77202ed-6243-4868-80b3-cac2e2cc0204&bsft_uid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654&bsft_mid=41525857-7d6a-4c17-8c4b-32fa072a0d0a&bsft_txnid=71ccf64d-01ad-4629-b814-d2085bc58599&bsft_utid=9cbb1a3f-fa2f-419b-b7c7-e6dd5fdc9654-Newsletter_COR_WHATEVERITTAKES&bsft_mime_type=html&bsft_ek=2025-02-17T05%3A00%3A00Z&bsft_lx=8&bsft_tv=513&bsft_aaid=72bb9dec-3452-4075-a63c-0f8d60246a1e

Ukraine Crisis

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions