Why the US doesn't see this a hostile intent is beyond me. But I guess too much of "culture war" and too much of the idea that the "Deep State" in the US is the real enemy blurs people from seeing those who really have hostile intent. — ssu

I think that in the US most people and politicians (left or right leaning, it doesn’t matter) have finally converged on the idea that the US can’t afford anymore to overstretch: overwhelming debt for military expenditure, dispersing resources around the world in geopolitical arena without significant return of their political, military, economic investment while enemies and allies grow fatter and hostile toward the US. So now the US is betting on the fact that neither Europeans nor Russia can really profit much from the US downsizing their presence in Europe to threaten the US strategic interests (also in Europe) in the foreseeable future, at least by comparison with China. Russia and Europe look now too weak to challenge Trumps’ game, and their weakness can be played against one another.

If American nationalists wish to keep the US as the strongest superpower, which they most likely do, then Russia can be very much instrumental to contain China (and Iran to make Israel happy!). This likely includes the idea of keeping China and Europe separated. The idea of using Russia to counter China as the biggest competitor to the US supremacy is e.g. what Mearsheimer kept suggesting roughly since the beginning of this conflict. — neomac

And this is so the real insanity, which just show the extreme hubris and utter ignorance and delusions of these "American nationalists".

Perhaps they in their fantasies think of an "Kissinger moment" when Nixon went to China and the Americans enjoyed that "they" had breached the Communist states. Well, that breach happened because Mao was Stalinist and Soviet Union moved away from Stalinism with the two countries even having a border war.

What this friending of Russia, in order to "separate China", will do is for the US just loose it's largest and most trustworthy ally. Allies that really have designed their armed forces to be part of NATO. The trust has already been breached by Trump. Trump has through his actions made it totally clear that it won't stand with Europe and Europe has to go it's own way. The "Europe having to pay" for it's share of the common defense is now only a fig leaf that certainly the Europeans will repeat diplomatically. But they do understand that Trump and Vance don't give a shit about Ukraine and don't give shit about the Transatlantic alliance. Far too liberal in their view. Biden and Obama were liked in Europe, so fuck those people. So the real division here done is an effort to break up the Atlanticism. The US is already an untrustworthy ally.

Besides, these "American nationalists" seem to be totally incapable of seeing this from the Russian perspective. Why on Earth would Russia be against China here? What benefit would have to have hostile relations with it's largest trade partner and a country that is shares a very long border? It's China who has helped Russia here, not the US.

Putin will happily lure these suckers into breaking up their own alliances with empty promises.

Here's a great interview from Gabrielus Landsbergis, a former Latvian foreign minister, who clearly tells the situation as it is now. He gives insight just why some countries (like France) is against the using of Russia's frozen assets to help Ukraine. The reason is that China and Saudi Arabia are against this, which itself is understandable as for these countries such a precedent would be bad. Also the Landsbergis compares of just how little the aid to Ukraine has been compared to how costly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were. The assistance to Ukraine is counted in few hundred billion, those wars in the Global War Against Terror cost is in the trillions both. — ssu

I don’t think that Trump (and his advisors) ignores the risk of Putin not playing along, or that the US may suffer a significant backlash from European allies, which feel betrayed, but I think they feel the need and see greater opportunities for this strategy to succeed now for the reasons I discussed previously: the US must avoid to overstretch, must contain China, both European countries and Russia must be more instrumental to the US strategic interests than the other way around, and at this point the US has greater leverage over European countries and Russia.
Concerning the relation between China and Russia, the problem is multifaceted: to begin with, the Ukrainian case is important also as a precedent for the case of Taiwan, in the sense China are supporting the Ukrainian territorial integrity to then be able to justify the same demand against Taiwan and US interference. But most importantly, China's growing influence, both economically and militarily, has the potential to impact Russia's security and strategic independence in complex ways (from energy business to technology). A the same time areas of competing interests (Central Asia, Far East, Arctic region) are abundant (they also had border conflict in the past). So Russia is very much unlikely that it aspires to become more vulnerable to China. Besides China enjoys greater appeal in terms of soft power and diplomacy to the Rest. And Slavic Russians feel to be more culturally and ethnically close to Europeans than to Asians, which makes it hard to swallow e.g. for Russian ultra-nationalists (e.g. supporting Putin’s aggression against Ukraine) to tolerate Chinese growing and more assertive influence. So from the Russian perspective (especially Putin’s perspective) it could be more tempting to partner with the US than with China. But is Putin really going to trust Trump and play along? The US frustrated Russia’s expectations so many times. And what if Trump’s mandate ends in four or, worse, two years?
Besides, I don’t think that Trump’s interest is to leave Europe. He wants Europe to turn into submissive clients, more responsive or pro-active in complying with the US demands: you want security? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). You want our market open to your products? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). Sort of a racketeering strategy, which is the other face of the wonderful peaceful multi-polar world which European pacifists were so badly wishing for.

Trump is being used as a patsy to carry through some harsh but necessary foreign policy decisions. An exit from Ukraine is one of them, just like Trump facilitated the ugly but much-needed exit from Afghanistan.

I see a lot of Americans putting all the blame on Trump, and then on Putin who must have blackmailed him, trying to exculpate their country from this utterly blatant act of Machiavallianism. — Tzeentch

I believe Trump sees himself and Putin, united, as capable of creating one superpower of world dominance. However, they both know, that ultimately there's only room for one at the top, so even within their partnership they are each strategizing and maneuvering to gain the upper hand.

The way I read it is that Putin has something disgusting on Trump and when he realised that he was going to have to push harder against Putin if he’s going to get a deal. He immediately went to the plausible deniability that it was a set up orchestrated by the Biden’s and that he isn’t as depraved as he appears in the video. He might even claim it’s a deepfake. — Punshhh

Russia put a significant amount of effort, over a long period of time, into providing for Trump, the presidency, in the first place. There was most likely significant strategizing and collaboration, much of which is probably documented somewhere (the proverbial "laptop"). On the other hand, many MAGAs refuse to believe that the movement which they are a part of, is nothing more than a plot hatched by some wily Russians. Disillusionment can be devastating, so is is resisted as long as possible. Release of that information ("laptop") at the appropriate time, could be devasting to MAGA, as well as Trump himself, and possibly the US in general. So Trump is in a position where he needs to ensure that Putin still needs him for as long as possible, to avoid that devastation, and Putin seeks the time of highest impact.

The Trump administration has fxcked up big time. By cutting USAID they have fallen at the first hurdle. The biggest threat from China over the last few decades has been their aid and investment strategies around the third world(amongst others). Now the influence the U.S. had in these arenas has been handed to China on a plate. While Russia is following China’s example in the African continent and we have the rise of BRICS. — Punshhh

USAID was part of the US soft-power arsenal (something similar holds for China). But America soft-power narrative has been exploited by anti-Americans outside and, most importantly, inside Europe, to further discredit the US foreign policies, or, if you prefer, American imperialism (China wasn’t discredited as much). So if you want USAID now you have to beg for it and stop shitting over US foreign policies or, if you prefer, American imperialism. Besides there are means for the US to mess-up with Chinese investments around the world, by fomenting conflicts or by bending political will with threats (https://www.csis.org/analysis/italy-withdraws-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative) or by extending territorial control (see the story of Panama and Greenland).
I totally understand that the US is playing a risky game because they might still very much need allies to preserve their superpower status. But in the current predicament they clearly privilege those which are proven to be helpful and faithful to the US’s struggle for supremacy, then it’s matter of European people’s taste: Netanyahu, Starmer, or Salvini?

Secondly they have misunderstood the motives in Europe. The failure of the TTIP negotiations wasn’t a failure on the part of the EU, it was them not falling over and becoming an economic vassal block via U.S. litigation which would be imported along with the goods. A colonisation through the economic back door.
Also the deleterious effects the U.S. experienced as a result of globalisation were also felt by European countries. It affected all Western countries and is the primary reason why the EU is struggling economically at this time. — Punshhh

European motives, no matter how legitimate, risk very much to fail when they fly over power relations. And lions want and take the biggest share, no matter how hungry the others are. Maybe Europeans could have played it smarter instead of playing it harder? For sure, they had time. Now time is over.

They will fall at the next hurdle if they alienate Europe and find they have no friends anymore. How sad, although, they will have Putin’s shoulder to cry on I suppose. — Punshhh

Europe is not one subject. It can be conveniently fragmented by pushing domestic nationalism. And Europeans, especially the anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists are happy to fragment Europe. Now those very same anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists will get what they wished for. They are going to love it.

I think that in the US most people and politicians (left or right leaning, it doesn’t matter) have finally converged on the idea that the US can’t afford anymore to overstretch: overwhelming debt for military expenditure, dispersing resources around the world in geopolitical arena without significant return of their political, military, economic investment while enemies and allies grow fatter and hostile toward the US. So now the US is betting on the fact that neither Europeans nor Russia can really profit much from the US downsizing their presence in Europe to threaten the US strategic interests (also in Europe) in the foreseeable future, at least by comparison with China. Russia and Europe look now too weak to challenge Trumps’ game, and their weakness can be played against one another. — neomac

But this doesn't make sense. Fine if you want to downside your military, if you want to go back to the US, be the proverbial isolationist, why then attack your allies? Why go so blatantly and so clearly on the side that is and has been hostile to you? Why vote in favour of Russia and North Korea when even China abstained from the vote in the UN? Why repeat Kremlin talking points? And why then this bizarre ideas about Trump Gaza? Why the attempt to annex Greenland and Panama? The US behavior under Trump is not something what you describe above.

Above all, is Elon cutting dramatically the American military to be half of it's size? Of course not.

And the US people and the politicians? I don't think that they have converged to this idea at all. If they would, then you could post me ample amount of speeches and commentary that this would be the case.

the US must avoid to overstretch, must contain China, both European countries and Russia must be more instrumental to the US strategic interests than the other way around, and at this point the US has greater leverage over European countries and Russia. — neomac

What leverage the US has over Russia? Trump has surrendered the position that everybody know how you deal with Russia, from a position of strength. It has thrown away it's own cards and become an subservient to Russia in pushing the agenda what Russia wants. Before the negotiations have even started, it has accepted the major Russian points that Putin has made. So idiot Vance tells that these arguments that Putin has made are "reality". Well, that Ukraine would be fighting a war still after 3 years of the conventional attack wasn't "reality" for anyone except the will of the Ukrainian people.

Sorry, neomac, I truly respect your views and you are informed about these issues, but this isn't your typical administration that has long term objectives and clear thinking of what it is going to do. There is this urge to see some logical reason behind everything, but you have to understand that one really big possibility is that there is none.

Trump is the key to understand everything here. It's so simply.

Because just look how actually thoughtful and visionary someone like Marco Rubio was before Putin invaded in 2022. (Notably you can see a person who is now a the secretary of defense in his former position in the video). Rubio understood that Russia would attack Ukraine and Rubio had been a very pro-Ukrainian hawk. Here, before the 2022 invasion, he was saying that Ukraine has to be armed. Here's a blast from the past:



Hence this isn't some new insight that the political establishment has. This is just the political establishment coping with the whims of Trump. And Trump thinks he is the Master of the Universe, so he goes on with a quick surrender of Ukraine, Trump Gaza and other crazy stuff.

I don’t think that Trump’s interest is to leave Europe. He wants Europe to turn into submissive clients, more responsive or pro-active in complying with the US demands: you want security? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). You want our market open to your products? Pay or you’ll be on your own (or, worse, we’ll be against you). Sort of a racketeering strategy, which is the other face of the wonderful peaceful multi-polar world which European pacifists were so badly wishing for. — neomac

He might genuinely be so stupid as he comes through his rhetoric and actions, which will just end up in the dismantlement of American power in a very rapid way. Note that Europeans have already seen where this is going. Friedrich Merz said that Europe has to be independent of the US and isn't sure if NATO will be around for the next NATO summit in the summer.

Likely it will be around in the end of June, but the Hague is a great place for Trump to leave NATO.

I totally understand that the US is playing a risky game because they might still very much need allies to preserve their superpower status. But in the current predicament they clearly privilege those which are proven to be helpful and faithful to the US’s struggle for supremacy, then it’s matter of European people’s taste: Netanyahu, Starmer, or Salvini? — neomac

Yeah,

Why don't you start with the allies that have contributed soldiers that have participated in the wars you have fought? Wouldn't they be the ones that are important? Or you want those allies that won't do anything, but praise your President? Guess then your most helpful and faithful allies are Bibi and Victor Orban, which the former naturally hasn't ever contributed forces to your wars, but you contribute troops to even today. And why doesn't Trump ask the billions back from Bibi then?

In fact, just in Afghanistan, Denmark suffered the second most casualties compared to the population, which is quite small.

Number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan
Country Deaths Population (2010) Deaths per million
1.USA 2,461* 309 million 7.96
2. Denmark 43 5.5 million 7.82
3.Georgia 32 4.4 million 7.27
4.UK 457 63 million 7.25
5.Estonia 9 1.3 million 6.92
6.Canada 159* 34 million 4.68
7.New Zealand 10 4.4 million 2.27
8.Norway 10 4.9 million 2.04
9.Australia 41 22 million 1.86
10.Latvia 4 2.2 million 1.82

So how is Trump valuing Denmark as an ally and the commitment the small country has made? He wants to buy or annex parts of it, and hasn't refrained from even using military force. In that Trump shows his real face.

Don't ever think that this is normal or belittle the past administrations that they too would be as "transactional" as Trump. For the MAGA crowd, those are the "Deep State". This really isn't normal behavior anymore.

Now Norway is going to enable access to her €1.5trillion sovereign fund for aid to Ukraine. I wonder if the Nobel prize representatives are following events.
Now what was that tally I was doing;
EU; €700billion.
Frozen Russian assets; €300billion.
Norwegian sovereign fund; €1.5trillion.

Looks like we can go it alone after all.

Europe is not one subject. It can be conveniently fragmented by pushing domestic nationalism. And Europeans, especially the anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists are happy to fragment Europe. Now those very same anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists will get what they wished for. They are going to love it.

There is a dichotomy here, nationalism pulls together for the fight in a war. If the libertarians want to create division in Europe to weaken the EU. Forcing them to step up to defend a European country is not the way to do it. Indeed, the opposite will happen. It will probably end in an integrated European army. I’m reminded of what Sweden and Finland did following Putin’s invasion. Strengthening NATO. They (Sweden) are prepairing for war conducting exercises with Canadian forces. Looks as though the opposite of what Putin wanted is going to happen.

So Trump is in a position where he needs to ensure that Putin still needs him for as long as possible, to avoid that devastation, and Putin seeks the time of highest impact.

Yes, makes sense. There was a similar thing happening in the U.K. with the Tory party. Particularly Boris Johnson, who pushed the Brexit vote over the line.

Looks like we can go it alone after all. — Punshhh

Yes. Hopefully we will just get to have that will and not buy the MAGA-American defeatism.

Some countries have helped more Ukraine with what they have, than others:


The truth is a war against Russia is totally winnable in the sense that you don't have to surrender. Japan, Poland and my country have shown it.

:smile: :

My honest statement of sorrow for criticising President Zelensky in the past:

Since the last events that took place at The White House (Washington, United States of America), I have been reflecting on what I posted here, (and what is worse) what was my opinion on Zelensky, yet I wasn't even entitled to say that and the other.

I defended with high emphasis that Zelensky was a puppet of both Biden senior (the President) and Biden junior (Hunter), but after watching the heated discussion with Trump and Vance, I regret now all that I thought. I ranted at him about gas prices and how everything went up because of the war crisis.

Nonetheless, Zelensky pointed out something critical: We signed a gas contract. A gas contract, yes.

I opened my eyes and awoke from my ignorance. It turned clear to me that Ukraine is a country full of natural resources whose sovereignty is subdued to different empires. Russia in the past and America has interest now.

It would be very difficult to be a president of a nation where bullies want to huddle you up and rip off your land. Look, it is not about to be pro-Russian or pro-Ukraine, yes? It is about how people from Eastern Europe are defending their dignity. We live in countries where natural resources are low, but imagine that you have some, and your destination depends on what deal is done at a random desk in a Western nation.

Too bad. I regret what I thought and posted in the past, but intelligent people rectify. Kudos to Zelensky for facing Trump.

3/3/2025.

I can understand Trump liking his ego stroked by Putin. But Russia seems an unlikely ally for any of the factions that make up Trumps power base (or pull his strings). It seems to me that Russia has little to offer to any political faction in the US. — Echarmion

"Traditional" Republicans are anti-Russia, but they're pro-personal power. Trump's presence as President gives them power, but only if they support everything he does.

Sure, Europeans will be compelled to look for new alliances, like China, if the US is turning into its enemy.
However the first 2 related problems that come to mind to me are the following:
1. China is pretty faraway from Europe and all routes for commercial and security support are mostly under the control of Russia and the US, one way or the other.
2. Europe is not really ONE political subject. It’s many, and they are unable to strongly converge on many security and economic issues (local nationalism contributes to keeping divided, without the interference of foreign powers). And the US strategy is to avoid to overstretch but still preserve an affordable/sustainable sphere of influence over the part of Europe that will submit to its demands for business and/or security and shut up (“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.”), because they are unable to do otherwise under the pressure of the Russian threat, economic recessions, islamic immigration, corrupt politicians, climate change, gender equality, you name it. — neomac

I'm not really seeing a carrot here though. Threatening to withdraw security guarantees isn't a carrot, it's another stick. It's all stick.

Trump seems to operate on an extreme version of the door in the face policy where he ramps up the rhetoric, then turns it down a bit, only to ramp it back up again if there's no immediate reaction.

If Trump wanted to peel of countries from Europe to firmly anchor to the US, the obvious target would be Britain. Yet by ramping up the rhetoric and questioning US support, the Trump administration is instead causing Britain to deepen it's ties with France.

My understanding is that on one side, the pivot to Asia, namely the incumbency of competing superpower like China, has been a strategic concern for the US politics for a good decade. So an economically/military weak Russia, subordinate to China (which is also eroding Russian influence on its eastern flank), in desperate need to regain its superpower status (like at the end of the Second World War) can be instrumental to the US in exchange for a strategic partnership. — neomac

Eh, I'm not buying it. Russia is in no position to help contain China. Russian demographics don't support it and it's diplomatic capital in Asia is in decline. Russian efforts in Africa seem to have fared somewhat better, but a bunch of mercenaries aren't competitive with the economic incentives China can offer.

And at the end of the day Putin's regime would have trouble selling it's role as the US' new junior party to the russian public.

On the other side, Europe has spent 30 years of globalisation enriching themselves and the US enemies (Russia and China) at the expense of the US, instead of taking a greater responsibility in opening its market to the US, and defending the West through soft-power (instead of spinning populist anti-Americanism, complacency toward anti-Western sentiments in the Rest), and also by military means. — neomac

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The US is China's biggest single customer. And Europe has been moving in concert with the US regarding China for the most part.

Russia has been a bit different due to Europe's reliance on Russian gas but the war has already "fixed" that.

And in terms of military support, European forces where involved everywhere from Afghanistan to Lybia. Sure US relations have been contentious with various European parties, but accusing Europe of "spinning populist anti-Americanism" is just a really weird take.

As Russia and China are using populist nationalism against the transatlantic alliance, the US will be using European populist nationalism to turn their countries into a submissive client status, because they are incapable of turning into strong allies (like Israel). They just acted as US parasites, so they will be treated as such. — neomac

Turn European countries into submissive client status and then what? I'm missing the strategic objective here. You talked earlier about the US wanting to avoid being overstretched, but turning allies into clients leads to more overstretching, not less.

Honestly I do not think the policies of the current administration correspond to the kind of traditional power politics you're outlining. I think we're seeing attempts by at least some people in the administration to engineer a radical break with all US "entanglements". Elon Musk today tweeted support for the US leaving both NATO and the UN. There was an angry message from Trump towards Europe and Zelensky, followed by significantly more conciliatory tones at a press conference.

The obvious result of this is chaos and uncertainty, not any strategic improvement of the US' geopolitical position. Perhaps the chaos is indeed the point.

News is breaking that Trump is halting military aid to Ukraine.

No surprise. It was expected. After the circus of last Friday, Trump even gave us reason to believe that now he is also a threat to Ukraine and Europe.

Allegedly ChatGPT regarding the Oval Office crap on Feb 28, 2025:

1. Blaming the victim for their own situation

Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. The implication is that Ukraine itself is responsible for being occupied by Russia and for the deaths of its people.

2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’

Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights.

3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’

Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.

4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war

Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’

5. Devaluing the victims of war

“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to regroup and strike again.

6. Dominance tactics

Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us.” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate.

7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’

Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.

8. Projection and distortion of reality

Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky.

9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US

Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion.

10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance

Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.

It's so transparently fallacious: every day, Russia is still sending waves of killer drones and missiles, attacking on several fronts, and causing and sustaining casualties. When Trump says that Ukraine 'does not want peace', does that mean, they refuse to just lay down their arms and stop trying to intercept those missiles? It's blatantly ridiculous. Trump has made America the mouthpiece of Putin's propaganda. Congress and the Senate should be screaming blue murder.

News is breaking that Trump is halting military aid to Ukraine. — Wayfarer

Based on what I've read, it's actually worse. The Trump administration has halted all weapon exports to Ukraine.

People are still scrambling to find out what exactly that means but it could be a complete break with Ukraine. Which would in turn signal a break with NATO.

I think once European leaders have wrapped their heads around this, the next step might be the attempt to buy those US shipments and send them to Ukraine. The reaction of the US administration to that would be telling on the future of NATO.

But this doesn't make sense. Fine if you want to downside your military, if you want to go back to the US, be the proverbial isolationist, why then attack your allies? Why go so blatantly and so clearly on the side that is and has been hostile to you? Why vote in favour of Russia and North Korea when even China abstained from the vote in the UN? Why repeat Kremlin talking points? And why then this bizarre ideas about Trump Gaza? Why the attempt to annex Greenland and Panama? The US behavior under Trump is not something what you describe above.

Above all, is Elon cutting dramatically the American military to be half of it's size? Of course not.

And the US people and the politicians? I don't think that they have converged to this idea at all. If they would, then you could post me ample amount of speeches and commentary that this would be the case. — ssu

Here some clarifications:
First, I was talking specifically about the issue of “overstretching”. Imperial overstretch can be broadly understood as the overextension geographically, economically, or militarily that inevitably leads to the exhaustion of vital domestic resources, decline, and fall (https://niallferguson.substack.com/p/debt-has-always-been-the-ruin-of). This risk was abundantly under the radar of American analysts, prior to Obama administration (https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/07/15/the-danger-of-imperial-overstretch/)
And it became even more pressing under Obama and the pivot to Asia:
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/04/2017/obama-and-%E2%80%9Cunder-reachover-reach%E2%80%9D-dilemma-american-grand-strategy
Secondly, I wasn’t talking about isolationism. I think Trump is aiming at revising American Imperialism where the US keeps a sphere of influence but more affordable/sustainable (also militarily). And this will take place at the expense of international liberal order. The international liberal was supported by the US during the globalisation but it ended up benefiting, mostly: EU, Russia, and China. Maybe it came natural to many to think that the end of American-led world order automatically meant the end of American imperialism. But if one understands the extent to which the American-led world order was a BURDEN on the US, one can understand why its end doesn’t necessarily compromise US hegemonic ambitions. On the contrary, it can unleash them. Indeed, once the US breaks free from multilateral agreements (that could be vetoed), the costs of policing the world, and spinning the liberal-democratic propaganda, American foreign policies have an “unprecedented” wider spectrum of options (I’ve already talked about this one month ago [1]) also for decreasing their costs. This comes at the price however of accepting greater risks and more fluid alliances, hedged only to the extent the US maintains its military/technological/financial supremacy.
Thirdly, the wide support for Trump’s second mandate in the name of “Make American Great again” evidently show that Trump’s agenda and propaganda were effective to gain popular consensus over internal and external challenges. And things were set in motion already in his first mandate. Notice however that Biden, in between the two Trump’s mandate, kept following the foreign policy trends set by Trump in his first mandate:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/22/biden-us-policy-trump-legacy-foreign-policy-aukus/
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/strategic-change-us-foreign-policy?lang=en
“U.S. Foreign Policy on the Verge of a New Path” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807368/
Ukraine also provides a case to understand left-leaning attitude toward the risk of overstretching: despite the rhetoric, Biden’s support for Ukraine was pretty much self-restrained (while the support for Israel wasn’t as much) for reasons that do not seem explainable exclusively in terms of military aid capacity or fear of escalation e.g. to a nuclear conflict.
My understanding is that this approach was inspired by the need of containing Russia (and Russia’s influence in Europe) without overdoing, namely, without diverging efforts from the pivot to China, or even letting China profit from Russia’s weakness to increase its regional influence. Indeed, ”China, not Russia, poses the greatest long-term threat to American interests" (https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/ukraine-wants-security-guarantees-does-that-mean-america-must-go-to-war/). Biden had also to take into account the raise of domestic concerns from overcommitting  to foreign conflicts (see https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/25/wide-partisan-divisions-remain-in-americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine/ where only  “18% say the U.S. is not providing enough support” to Ukraine).
Not to mention the far left which spins anti-imperialist propaganda and keeps invoking restraint and retrenchment: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/15/chomsky-foreign-policy-book-review-american-idealism/


[1] https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963479

As I wrote a while back, the problem the West must face is that if rising anti-Western regimes do not evolve into more Western-style liberal democracies, the West may feel compelled to adopt the characteristics of these anti-Western, militarized authoritarian regimes in order to balance the asymmetry. Meanwhile, nationalist and religious motivations, as well as propaganda, are likely to take precedence over universal human rights motivations and/or propaganda. Imperial ambitions may also become more openly territorial, which AT BEST could lead to a form of agreed-upon, stable (?) spheres of influence. In this scenario, minority groups and non-hegemonic states will likely face oppression, exploitation, or will be used to serve the interests of the dominant powers one way or another through local populist bootlickers.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:

* If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada.
* If Russia commits genocide or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, and China does the same against the Uyghurs, then Israel can act similarly in Palestine.
* If Russia and China can leverage economic pressure or political division to exploit Europe against the U.S., the U.S. can retaliate in the same way against Russia and China.
* If Russia and China reject green agreements, the U.S. can do the same.
* If China exploits Russia to counterbalance the U.S., the U.S. can attempt to exploit Russia against China.
* If Russia and China promote nationalism or religious extremism to advance their geopolitical agendas, the U.S. can follow the same path.
* If Russia and China adopt protectionist policies against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft), the U.S. can similarly oppose China’s technologies and Russia’s attempts to exploit them against the West the US.

And so on.

the US must avoid to overstretch, must contain China, both European countries and Russia must be more instrumental to the US strategic interests than the other way around, and at this point the US has greater leverage over European countries and Russia. — neomac

What leverage the US has over Russia? Trump has surrendered the position that everybody know how you deal with Russia, from a position of strength. It has thrown away it's own cards and become an subservient to Russia in pushing the agenda what Russia wants. Before the negotiations have even started, it has accepted the major Russian points that Putin has made. So idiot Vance tells that these arguments that Putin has made are "reality". Well, that Ukraine would be fighting a war still after 3 years of the conventional attack wasn't "reality" for anyone except the will of the Ukrainian people. — ssu

To me the war in Ukraine wasn’t primarily about evidently pressing security concerns for Russia (I don’t think they were non-existent but they worked more as convenient pretexts), but about:
1. Russia imperialist ambitions and power projection: reshaping the world order in which Russia could see it self as top-rank superpower beside the US like during Stalin, Soviet Union, Cold War, and related sphere of influence. Feelings there shared not only by Putin but by its political and economic entourage, part of Russian intelligentsia, and Russian people.
2. Grabbing the opportunity provided by a series of favourable conditions: EU unreadiness and fear of escalation, conflicts between EU and the US (anti-NATO and anti-American feelings), US domestic instabilities and US pivoting to Asia. And the pressure of unfavourable conditions: Russia’s incumbent demographic decline and pro-Western ideological corruption of Russian youth especially in the capital (democracy, human rights, freedom etc.)

So the leverage Trump has is to finally satisfy Russia’s aspirations, and to save Russia from China’s fatal hug, in the moment where Russia is more vulnerable since the beginning of the conflict wrt the US and China. Besides what if Trump helps Putin economically recover e.g. by removing sanctions?
I don’t think public declarations alone help us understand the full picture and I can’t discount the possible existence of reserved diplomatic channels where Putin and Trump may have found some basic agreement already by the end of last year. What however strikes me the most is the idea that Trump is taking by far the initiative to reset the relationship with Russia, without much evident concessions from Putin other than political flattery. Anyways, taking into account Trump’s aggressive diplomacy and even extortion (see Miran’s plan), my speculation is that Trump is de facto provoking and humiliating the Europeans to trigger some reaction that can be conveniently exploited against Russia one way or the other. If Europeans will prove to be so determined to counter Russia’s expansionism even by military means, if necessary, Trump can play the role of the good cop offering a partnership to spare Russia’s predicament from getting worse. In exchange, Trump expects Russia to detach from its current allies (China, Iran, North Korea), and avoid to interfere in the Middle East (also in favour of Israel). The cooperation with Russia and Israel will help further isolate China from Europe. If Europeans give up on Ukraine and start to go in different directions, Europe as a common project will likely end , then there will be those which will turn into US bootlickers and those which will turn into Russian bootlickers. The difference is just that if the US bootlickers will be happier than the Russian bootlickers, resentment toward Russia will grow once again and Russia will need to repress, so the burden of overstretching will be put once again on Russia’s shoulders without US antagonising Russia.
In both cases, Trump can sell weapons to Europeans to counter Russia but only for business sake (like Turkey with Ukraine), not because he cares about Russia taking Ukraine or other pieces of Europe to re-establish its sphere of influence. So much so that Europeans are compelled not only buy but also buy as much as possible prior to any conflict with Russia to avoid that the US will stop selling weapons to favour Russia. In both cases, there will be some “bucket-passing” (“when a great power finds itself in a defensive posture trying to prevent rivals from gaining power at its expense, it can choose to engage in balancing or intervene by favoring buck-passing—transferring the responsibility to act onto other states while remaining on the sidelines, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism#Theoretical_flaws).
Notice that this speculative scenario is somehow reversing globalization: Europe and Russia will be put one against the other to empower the US and help the US contain US rivals (primarily China, but also Russia and Iran).
It’s a “Weimar moment” for the international order: US resentment + economic weakness (debt) + weakness international institutions and soft power are leading to a more assertive/aggressive and authoritarian US.

Because just look how actually thoughtful and visionary someone like Marco Rubio was before Putin invaded in 2022. (Notably you can see a person who is now a the secretary of defense in his former position in the video). Rubio understood that Russia would attack Ukraine and Rubio had been a very pro-Ukrainian hawk. Here, before the 2022 invasion, he was saying that Ukraine has to be armed. Here's a blast from the past: — ssu

Once one takes into account the full picture one can see better how propaganda is instrumental for longer political trajectories (after putting aside the part in which the propaganda of one side is just trying to put the blame on the opposite side): Russia WAS and IS a threat to Europe and Trump wants to keep it that way (even better if Russia feels threatened by Europe). It’s just that neither Biden-style nor EU-style approach (as shown by European politicians hesitant toward Russia or infiltrated by Russia) could handle the Russian threat the way Trump can to support MAGA. Russia poses a different threat to the US now (before it was too close to Europe, then too close to China), so Trump needs to contain the Russian threat independently from the European contribution to such containment, by offering Russia the US partnership to re-balance.

He might genuinely be so stupid as he comes through his rhetoric and actions, which will just end up in the dismantlement of American power in a very rapid way. Note that Europeans have already seen where this is going. Friedrich Merz said that Europe has to be independent of the US and isn't sure if NATO will be around for the next NATO summit in the summer.

Likely it will be around in the end of June, but the Hague is a great place for Trump to leave NATO. — ssu

We will see. I just believe that Trump’s moves however outrageous to our political habits are more logic than they appear. He’s certainly playing a risky game. And things can go awfully wrong in so many ways. But even if Trump won’t achieve his goals, that doesn’t mean Europeans are going to achieve theirs. As I wrote two 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.”

I totally understand that the US is playing a risky game because they might still very much need allies to preserve their superpower status. But in the current predicament they clearly privilege those which are proven to be helpful and faithful to the US’s struggle for supremacy, then it’s matter of European people’s taste: Netanyahu, Starmer, or Salvini? — neomac

Yeah,

Why don't you start with the allies that have contributed soldiers that have participated in the wars you have fought? Wouldn't they be the ones that are important? Or you want those allies that won't do anything, but praise your President? Guess then your most helpful and faithful allies are Bibi and Victor Orban, which the former naturally hasn't ever contributed forces to your wars, but you contribute troops to even today. And why doesn't Trump ask the billions back from Bibi then?

In fact, just in Afghanistan, Denmark suffered the second most casualties compared to the population, which is quite small.

Number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan
Country Deaths Population (2010) Deaths per million
1.USA 2,461* 309 million 7.96
2. Denmark 43 5.5 million 7.82
3.Georgia 32 4.4 million 7.27
4.UK 457 63 million 7.25
5.Estonia 9 1.3 million 6.92
6.Canada 159* 34 million 4.68
7.New Zealand 10 4.4 million 2.27
8.Norway 10 4.9 million 2.04
9.Australia 41 22 million 1.86
10.Latvia 4 2.2 million 1.82

So how is Trump valuing Denmark as an ally and the commitment the small country has made? He wants to buy or annex parts of it, and hasn't refrained from even using military force. In that Trump shows his real face.

Don't ever think that this is normal or belittle the past administrations that they too would be as "transactional" as Trump. For the MAGA crowd, those are the "Deep State". This really isn't normal behavior anymore. — ssu

The problem is that Trump is questioning his predecessors’ strategies based on liberal internationalism and Western alliance, so he doesn’t feel committed to liberal internationalism, nor responsible for its legacy or supporters. I doubt what we are going to see a backlash against Trump from Europe soon, since the closest threat to Europe is now Russia.
But I do wonder what European pro-Russian supporters, even in this thread, would think if Trump materially enables Russia to completely defeat Ukraine. After all it’s always Trump who said he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough.

Europe is not one subject. It can be conveniently fragmented by pushing domestic nationalism. And Europeans, especially the anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists are happy to fragment Europe. Now those very same anti-American and pro-Russian nationalists will get what they wished for. They are going to love it.

There is a dichotomy here, nationalism pulls together for the fight in a war. If the libertarians want to create division in Europe to weaken the EU. Forcing them to step up to defend a European country is not the way to do it. Indeed, the opposite will happen. It will probably end in an integrated European army. I’m reminded of what Sweden and Finland did following Putin’s invasion. Strengthening NATO. They (Sweden) are prepairing for war conducting exercises with Canadian forces. Looks as though the opposite of what Putin wanted is going to happen. — Punshhh

If you think that “integrated European army” is the likely result of Trump’s pressure and an integrated European army is precondition for the European strategic emancipation on world stage, then paradoxically Europeans should welcome Trump’s pressure. However Europe is not just Finland and Sweden, nor is their alliance going to compromise Trump’s agenda. And nationalism can be used also to break European cohesion, as it has been so far. Besides what European may need is not just an integrated army, but also an integrated military-industrial complex, and also a nuclear arsenal. Maybe the latter is even quicker to achieve.

I'm not really seeing a carrot here though. Threatening to withdraw security guarantees isn't a carrot, it's another stick. It's all stick.

Trump seems to operate on an extreme version of the door in the face policy where he ramps up the rhetoric, then turns it down a bit, only to ramp it back up again if there's no immediate reaction.

If Trump wanted to peel of countries from Europe to firmly anchor to the US, the obvious target would be Britain. Yet by ramping up the rhetoric and questioning US support, the Trump administration is instead causing Britain to deepen it's ties with France. — Echarmion

Right, it’s stick and stick, not carrot and stick, but whatever you want to call it, that’s Trump’s advisor’s proposed strategy. Britain has to deal with Trump’s extortionist approach and to try to hedge against it, if things go sideways but the instinct is still the same: insist on the “special relation” and try to bridge the divide with treats like an “unprecedented” invitation for a second state visit from King Charles.
The US wants to maintain the upper hand in dealing with other countries, it doesn’t matter if they are allies or not, since also allies can defect, betray or abuse of the benefits coming from superpowers' protection. While enemies are more willing to cooperate when they feel too weak.

My understanding is that on one side, the pivot to Asia, namely the incumbency of competing superpower like China, has been a strategic concern for the US politics for a good decade. So an economically/military weak Russia, subordinate to China (which is also eroding Russian influence on its eastern flank), in desperate need to regain its superpower status (like at the end of the Second World War) can be instrumental to the US in exchange for a strategic partnership. — neomac


Eh, I'm not buying it. Russia is in no position to help contain China. Russian demographics don't support it and it's diplomatic capital in Asia is in decline. Russian efforts in Africa seem to have fared somewhat better, but a bunch of mercenaries aren't competitive with the economic incentives China can offer.
And at the end of the day Putin's regime would have trouble selling it's role as the US' new junior party to the russian public. — Echarmion

Russia has a nuclear arsenal, oil and gas to fuel the Chinese economy. Its extension and geographic position can be used to constrain routes from China to Europe and to the arctic region. If the US helps Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine and remove the economic sanctions, Russia won’t feel the pressure to rely on China any more, it will have time to recover its resources to re-assert its dominance against those Russian federal states more vulnerable to the Chinese influence. But the US could help Russia even more to overcome its weaknesses (for example by providing needed technology). Go figure if the US sells weapons which Europeans are not willing to buy to Russia.
BTW also China has a problem of demographic decline.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The US is China's biggest single customer. And Europe has been moving in concert with the US regarding China for the most part.

Russia has been a bit different due to Europe's reliance on Russian gas but the war has already "fixed" that.

And in terms of military support, European forces where involved everywhere from Afghanistan to Lybia. Sure US relations have been contentious with various European parties, but accusing Europe of "spinning populist anti-Americanism" is just a really weird take. — Echarmion

But you must read more carefully. I wrote “Europe has spent 30 years of globalisation enriching themselves and the US enemies (Russia and China) at the expense of the US”. Germany, France, Europe didn’t buy enough American to balance their business affairs with China.
Surely you too are right to observe that also the US contributed to enrich China. To Trump however that means pro-globalization American establishment is responsible for enriching the enemies of the US. They have to be blamed, not Trump nor the US he represents.
Concerning European populism (especially far right populism), from the US perspective the issue is still the same. The problem is not much the legitimacy of US foreign policy criticisms. The problem is that the combination of aversion to NATO, EU (both instrument of American dominance), US imperialism (see criticisms toward “war on terror”), and Anti-Zionism (see criticisms against Israel seen as instrument of American imperialism) were infiltrated/supported by enemies of the US (Russia, China, Iran), while still Europe was hypocritically enjoying the benefits of the US protection. And their advocates were rising to mainstream politics. So now how can Trump reverse this trend? How can Trump use far right nationalists against Russia, China, Iran, etc.? Starting by reneging NATO, EU (both instrument of American dominance), US neoliberal imperialism, pushing their support to become more mainstream can help, but what about Israel? Trump needs more christian fanatics who are more anti-muslim and anti-arabs, than anti-Zionist not only at home but also in Europe.

Turn European countries into submissive client status and then what? I'm missing the strategic objective here. You talked earlier about the US wanting to avoid being overstretched, but turning allies into clients leads to more overstretching, not less. — Echarmion

The overstretching came from overcommitment to allies and from policing a liberal world order which allies and enemies could benefit from more than the US. Indeed, European allies (in particular Germany as the EU leader, but also France and Italy) didn’t pay their due for the security the US was offering, on the contrary they increased the reputational costs of American foreign policies, while still doing business with Russia and China and without any concern for their hegemonic ambitions and competition with the US. Now there is no liberal world order to police, nor obligations toward allies which do not pay American support as requested. Anybody who wants the US economic and military support has to sacrifice a bigger piece of its economic, political and military independence: markets must be wide open to American products, politicians should literally turn into American cheerleaders and European defense feed US military industry to offset security threats (like Russia). Clients do not lead to overstretching in the racketing business, that’s how mobsters ensure their criminal business to perpetuate.

Honestly I do not think the policies of the current administration correspond to the kind of traditional power politics you're outlining. I think we're seeing attempts by at least some people in the administration to engineer a radical break with all US "entanglements". Elon Musk today tweeted support for the US leaving both NATO and the UN. There was an angry message from Trump towards Europe and Zelensky, followed by significantly more conciliatory tones at a press conference.

The obvious result of this is chaos and uncertainty, not any strategic improvement of the US' geopolitical position. Perhaps the chaos is indeed the point. — Echarmion

What do you mean by “traditional power politics”? My understanding is based on comparing Trump’s current strategy wrt his predecessors’ (given the problems his predecessors had to face like overstretching and pivoting to China ), Trump’s advisors/sidekicks (like Miran, Musk and Bannon), and geopolitical analysts (like Mearsheimer). Trump’s strategy looks to me as an effort to maintain the American supremacy in accordance with the MAGA motto while adapting to the emergence of a multi-polar environment infested by powerful and ambitious authoritarian regimes.
Finally, “chaos” is about uprooting what has been taken for granted by allies and enemies about the US, right? How can such “chaos” serve Trump’s MAGA agenda to you? Maybe some order is still preferable to no order, right? What order is the preferable order to the US? What US preferable order may more likely lead allies and enemies fearing chaos to converge upon, right now , and without falling into the previous toxic dynamics?
Look, I may be wrong, and frankly I wish it to be if that's for the best, but maybe it’s better to take into account the worst scenario consistent with the available evidence. See where believing that Russia wouldn’t eventually invade Ukraine led us.

In politics, there is nothing more exploitable than feelings. In the West moral outrage as much as anti-Americanism so publicly advertised were exploitable, were exploited and will be exploited by powers hostile to the West AGAINST the West. Looking cynical or hypocritical (or deceitful about one own's feelings), can very much work as defence mechanisms against emotional exploitation and blackmailing.
What's worse is that religious and nationalist fanaticism can be more valuable to politicians than moral standing and pacifism, for the simple reason that the former create the psychological deterrence (they are ready to kill and be killed with not much qualms) the latter is incapable of inducing in perceived enemies.

Your best post so far. It made me laugh. :rofl: Maybe you should stick to more concise posts?

Things are moving fast..
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_673

Trump has just banned all protest on college campuses, on price of jail.

Indeed, once the US breaks free from multilateral agreements (that could be vetoed), the costs of policing the world, and spinning the liberal-democratic propaganda, American foreign policies have an “unprecedented” wider spectrum of options (I’ve already talked about this one month ago [1]) also for decreasing their costs. This comes at the price however of accepting greater risks and more fluid alliances, hedged only to the extent the US maintains its military/technological/financial supremacy. — neomac

What are the "unprecented" wider spectrums? This seems even more delusionary than the Brexiteers talking of the wonderful new deals that the UK can do without "being shackled by the EU".

How is does to the maintaining of that military/technological/financial supremacy help to alienate Europe, push them to put up their own military-industrial complex, declare publicly that you are an untrustworthy ally, who might not be there for you and then start what the WSJ called the "Dumbest trade war in History"?

How does it help that? IT DOESN'T! It has totally the opposite effect.

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. What is there to "divide" between Russia and China. China's military allies would be traditionally North Korea (even if that is a bit tense) and Myanmar and perhaps Pakistan. And that's it. Russia has basically has North Korea, a comrade in arms, Belarus, that is problematic for Russia ...and Armenia, for which this alliance has been a disaster. And then real or perceived influence in Central Asia. Oh and perhaps Cuba and Venezuela. And that's it.

What are you dividing with these countries? Russians are just laughing at how the US is destroying it's might itself. Russian economy is the size of Italy.

What is the reason to walk away from your most powerful allies?

Only thing is that Trump is either truly agent Trumpov or that the MAGA-crowd hates so much the liberal international order that they will want to attack their allies, destroy everything that the US has been building for 75 years and have these dreams of "a new world order" growing out of it.

Ukraine really is here the key, because it's the key to European defense structure. Vast majority of European countries will unify behind the support of Ukraine. You can already see how this is happening: a coalition of the willing is extensively working together and they don't give a fuck about Hungary or Slovakia.

What is the reason to walk away from your most powerful allies?

To become Rocket Man.

Or is it Icarus.


I’ve just heard an interview with general Sir Richard Sherriff (ex chief of the European arm of NATO). Who has his finger on the pulse. That the Russian army is in a bad way. They are putting disabled people and teenagers onto the from line and using civilian vans and vehicles, even golf trolleys to supply them and morale is low.

You should not convince me. You should convince Trump. I'm talking about his views as I understand them, I've tried to reconstruct his reasoning, from premises to conclusions. For Trump, abandonment could be a policy goal or a bargaining chip. Europeans now have to prepare for both scenarios: https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/trump-card-what-could-us-abandonment-europe-look
Besides I'm not saying Trump will succeed. That doesn't mean Europe, Russia or China will succeed either. What Trump is injecting into this multi-polar world is the idea that the US has the means to undermine trust and commitments of all the players by exploiting others' weaknesses and making threats: that's not only true for the West but also for the Rest, since Russia can break e.g. from China and Iran. But if anybody is on their own, then the bigger beasts have greater chance to eat the smaller ones and the biggest wins the competition.

Hegseth Orders Pentagon to Stop Offensive Cyberoperations Against Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/politics/hegseth-cyber-russia-trump-putin.html

Trump has just banned all protest on college campuses, on price of jail. — Punshhh

I couldn't find that anywhere. Do you have a reference? (Not that it'd be surprising.)

I’ve just heard an interview with general Sir Richard Sherriff (ex chief of the European arm of NATO). Who has his finger on the pulse. That the Russian army is in a bad way. They are putting disabled people and teenagers onto the from line and using civilian vans and vehicles, even golf trolleys to supply them and morale is low. — Punshhh

So, this is a good time for Putin to be relieved of pressure. Trump, at least, seems to be accommodating him.

https://balkaninsight.com/2025/01/27/trumpian-populism-on-the-march-in-central-europe/

It’s not being that widely reported on.
https://x.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1896943473120407962