Why aren't Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems not bribing Trump to push for the war in Ukraine, so they can sell more weapons? — neomac

First, in terms of general principle, the war profiteering contribution from the war in Ukraine, especially in terms of defence contractors, is in creating a far less stable world generally speaking in which it is "common sense" that more arms are needed by all parties. I.e. in stoking a new arms race.
Once adequately stoked, a fire no longer needs further kindling.

Second, even defence contractors don't want a nuclear war and even they would recognize the need for drip feed theory. Which, as the name connotes, is far from the maximalist approach to "whatever it takes" to supply arms to Ukraine. Indeed, defence contractors don't even want too much war!!

Too much war, even in setting policy too ambitiously in arming Ukraine, would be bad for defence contractors as it would be necessary to transition to a war time economy, at least partially. What a war time economy means is a central planning and low wage, if not volunteer, basis to war production (think women building planes in WWII). — boethius

May even open pandoras box of the defence contractor world in that socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production. — boethius

As far as I can recall, that’s the first time you are bringing this argument up with me. And I really appreciated it. No irony. At least it’s something new and definitely worth discussing.
Some more questions: what empirical evidence support your claim that “socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production”? And what do you mean by “strategically sound”?

Busy news recently...

Russian top diplomat Lavrov praises Trump on US president’s dealings with Ukraine
^{— Lucy Leeson · The Independent · Mar 2, 2025}
Trump's stunning string of Putin-friendly moves
^{— Dave Lawler · Axios · Mar 4, 2025}
Hegseth dismisses as "garbage" critique of US stance on Russia
^{— Phil Stewart, Idrees Ali, Sachin Ravikumar, Diane Craft · Reuters · Mar 6, 2025}
Russia launches huge strikes across Ukraine as US halts intelligence-sharing
^{— Luke Harding · Guardian · Mar 7, 2025}

Someone mentioned rebranding "surrender" as "peace".
"Trump's peace" is "Putin's peace"?
It's clear enough that this would be a major victory for Putin, who otherwise could have ended up facing some (harsh) problems at home.
The Kremlin circle's responses to the Oval Office incident (Feb 28, 2025) are telling.
None of this would make the Kremlin peaceful or deterred.

Why did we let these guys put their military bases on our land? Time to do self-criticism. — javi2541997

Great Powers can have totally different policies in totally different regions and with different countries. This is why many have this problem especially with the US as it's actions in it's backyard, in Central America and then in Western Europe or with Israel has been quite different. And this is totally similar with Russia and China. Russia can be outright hostile and murderous in it's "Near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia, yet it's likely very cordial and friendly to India or Brazil. And this is why many traditional leftists who have been against the US have been irritated of my views, if I have mentioned something positive of the previous actions of the US.

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO was a voluntary defense treaty, not an instrument of subjugation. The Warsaw Pact did achieve it's mission in 1956 in Hungary and especially in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was most successful Soviet military operation since Operation Bagration in 1944. It genuinely were the former Warsaw pact states in Eastern Europe that wanted themselves NATO protection. They were the most active in this. And in the case of Sweden and Finland, there is no other reason than Putin himself. Hence the pro-Russian commentators never talk about Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Above all, European countries really loved the system of keeping the Russians out, the US in and Germany lame.

What Americans true hubris is that these new "realpolitik" players that see Europe as weak as the EU is made up of 27 states and the largest of them, Germany, is a militarily tiny, is to see the continent as a liberal pushover. Because outside threat can make Europeans to come together, just like the Greek states came together with a unified threat of the Persian empire. For Europe, Putin is really a threat. If Trump goes to bed with Putin and does Putin's bidding, how would that logically change the situation? What is the threat now?

With Trump, it has changed. Just look at how the relationship has changed with Canada. It's really worth wile reading, and then reading again what Justin Trudeau, the exiting Canadian prime minister said:

Trudeau accused the US president of planning "a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us".

"That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state," he told reporters on Tuesday.

"This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners."

You think that is just "trade war rhetoric"? No, that above accusation you basically hurl at your enemy. Not a competitor, not an adversary, but to an enemy that threatens you. Only an enemy would have this kind of objective. And the way things are going, I think that in the future European politicians will start to sound like their Canadian counterparts.

That Trump has gone to the side of Russia, that JD Vance tells us that Russia isn't a threat to us, but some culture war issue "freedom of speach" is and Trump hints at possibly using force to get Greenland from Denmark have all crossed a line. Because the NATO members aren't Warsaw Pact members, so this has real consequences.

I understand why you Finns are worried; now Trump is fond of a threat to your nation. But let's not forget that he is also very friendly with Muhammad (the dictator of Morocco). What would happen if that mad lad decided to attack Ceuta and Melilla? Will Trump support him? Will Trump threaten Sanchez and Spain as he did with Zelensky and Ukraine? — javi2541997

This is our weak spot and this is why we seem to be so weak to Americans. Because even if I know Ceuta and Melilla, I'm sure that many Finns wouldn't know that these cities are in Africa. And there would be plenty of intellectuals that start talking about Spanish colonialism and the atrocities done in the Rif war.

We've already talked about the totally different security situation that European countries find themselves. I think the whims of the King of Morocco isn't your biggest threat, what if Morocco would collapse to have a civil war like Algeria or Syria? What if on the other side of the city limits (and the border zone) of Ceuta and Melilla you can see the flags of Islamic state of the Maghreb? Those people could declare of the divine mission to retake the lost lands of the Moors back.

The error here is to think that Finns would be indifferent if this happens. If the Finnish leadership tells us clearly just how the perilous the situation is for Spain, then there could be the response. It is simply a case of our leaders understanding that we are in the same boat and we cannot turn a blind eye to others security problems. That makes all security arrangement we have weak.

In the next decades, Europe has to think more about itself! — javi2541997

I would disagree.

The time is now. Or actually after last Friday week ago. And they are already thinking. Thanks to Trump, the World has changed already. The change is here and now.

Also the hawkish Bolton was among such analysts as much as part of Trump’s advisors in his first mandate: — neomac

Thanks for the references!

But do notice the difference here. One thing is to ask, especially behind closed doors, about something like this (as Bolton states). Another thing is to declare it openly, like Trump. Actually John Bolton explains it well:

And there are other possibilities that occurred to me: commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico. Joint condominium with Denmark. Independence but with a Compact of Free Association with the United States like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

There are a lot of possibilities. But they never got anywhere, because Trump talked about everything publicly, and the whole thing blew up.

When actually many Greenlanders do want independence, and it's just 50 000 people, what Bolton here is actually saying something that Danes could perhaps accept without losing face.

Yet Trump wants to annex more territory into the US. His agenda is to increase the territory of the US to cover all of the North of the American continent with the large island next to it. And this is the proposed with a sublte manner of asking a man if his wife can be raped.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines: — neomac

OK, I do understand where you are going. And I'm just trying to say that this is absolutely loony.

Autocratic regimes of Russia and China aren't more prosperous than us. We do like our democracy and our justice state. We are willing to fight for it. The "populists" we have do abide with laws and parliamentarism and actually support Ukraine.

But let's go over these points you made:

* 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. — neomac

Yeah, but notice what has happened when Russia made those territorial gains and didn't achieve it's goals of conquering Ukraine in three weeks. Russia is an existential threat to Europe. As von der Leyen said: "A clear and present danger". And that's why Europe is uniting in a historic arms race to put nearly everything and the kitchen sink into defense. That's why countries like Canada, Norway, UK are joining up with EU states as the threat is obvious. This is basically the only way that you can get the 27 nations of the EU plus few that are only in NATO to unite. And once they have built up their defense, why would they then listen to anything that the bully US will say?

And do notice that China hasn't at least yet started military action against Taiwan.

Now, why the fuck would you want the same type of reaction against yourself? Really, nobody has answered here what is the reasoning behind alienating your allies and bowing down in front of your enemies? The only one's agenda that this serves is Russia, as it wants to destroy the power of the US.

As been said, Italy is a larger economy than Russia. Russia is approaching one million dead and wounded in this war and has lost huge quantities of equipment. Why is this country put then on a pedestal?

It's just absolutely crazy that when you use Occam's razors, you do end up with the whims of an old vindictive narcissist as the answer.

* * *
And anyway, if scolding and badmouthing Zelensky, demanding a huge minerals deal without giving any security guarantees, cutting all aid and intel is bad... Perhaps it could be even worse:



Yet perhaps a grain of salt should be used here. The US has a habit of trying to influence things in Ukraine, but it doesn't control them. This is where some swalloy the Russian propaganda too easily: the Ukrainian revolutions, which there have been many, haven't been some astro-turf events machinated by the US. They have been popular revolutions, where usually the US have tried to influence the events. And so will here too happen. Ukrainian resolve to defend their country isn't made up of just one man. And the other Ukrainian politicians mentioned here likely won't be puppets either.

Now Trump, having said an Lies Social that he would put harder sanctions on Russia, then turns around to reporters in the Oval Office and "expressed understanding Friday for Russia’s stepped-up attacks on Ukraine after the White House halted military and intelligence aid to Kyiv this week, saying that he would resume help for the beleaguered country only when Ukrainian leaders agree that “they want to settle.”

“I actually think he’s doing what anybody else would do,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday, when asked whether he was upset that Russian President Vladimir Putin was taking advantage of the U.S. halt in aid for Ukraine. “Probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now. He wants to get it ended. And I think Ukraine wants to get it ended, but I don’t see. It’s crazy. They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it.” — WaPo

"Don't quite" get it? How about "don't have the foggiest idea, but would hate to upset my good friend Vladimir." In essence, Ukraine is being blamed for not throwing down their arms and inviting Russia to occupy their country. It's completely nuts, as is most of the other stuff he's doing.

Trump doesn't quite get it, because he cannot quite say publicly why Zelensky is insisting on fighting on: the US and UK urged him to fight on in March/April 2022, when a reasonable deal was about to signed concerning the neutral status of Ukraine.

Do you adjust your theory at all based on the fact that the US is obviously not the country forcing a continuation of the conflict?

Ukraine is being blamed for not throwing down their arms and inviting Russia to occupy their country. It's completely nuts, as is most of the other stuff he's doing. — Wayfarer

Yeah it's increasingly obvious that when Trump says "end the war" what he means is "Russia wins".

You can also contrast his behaviour with the tariffs with his behaviour on Ukraine. With the tariffs he is constantly changing his mind based on whatever media reports get to him. On Ukraine he has not changed any of his decisions despite significant concessions to him by Ukrainians.

Trump doesn't quite get it, because he cannot quite say publicly why Zelensky is insisting on fighting on: the US and UK urged him to fight on in March/April 2022, when a reasonable deal was about to signed concerning the neutral status of Ukraine.

A deal with Putin, yeah right.

You can find various neutral accounts of what transpired during the March/April 2022 Istanbul negotiations, including first-hand accounts of the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.

They speak for themselves.

Trump doesn't quite get it, because he cannot quite say publicly why Zelensky is insisting on fighting on — Tzeentch

Trump could say anything against Biden's administration. And indeed he blames Biden's administration for this war. Besides Trump has a penchant for conspiracy theories, so really it's very hard to understand why he couldn't say this... Ah, you mean that at this point Trump is clearly a Blob's puppet (as much as Biden) and he can't say anything against the Blob, right? But even in this case Trump could blame everything on Biden exclusively. His supporters aren't going to question him anyways. Why couldn't he do that? You have to speculate some more.

Since you do not need any evidence to support your factual claims, then no evidence are needed to dismiss your factual claims. Easy peasy.

But most of all why do you need all these elaborated speculations for, when the US strategy has clearly changed? Why on earth are you so badly looking for an almighty villain to blame everything on?

And Putin wouldn’t invade if an agreement had been signed?
It doesn’t matter what argument is put forward, everything goes back to Putin. Someone who can’t be trusted.

The negotiations took place in the first months of the invasion. And yes, if an agreement had been signed, in all likelihood we would not be where we are today.

But I urge you to look up information on these accounts yourself. Jeffrey Sachs gives clear accounts, which he bases on information he received directly from the mediators and diplomats involved.

If you want first-hand accounts by the Ukrainian negotiators, try this interview by Oleksandr Chalyi, or interviews by David Arakhamia.

Or try interviews by Oleksiy Arestovych - Zelensky's former spokesperson and possible Ukrainian political candidate.

The information is out there, just not in the mainstream media.

When actually many Greenlanders do want independence, and it's just 50 000 people, what Bolton here is actually saying something that Danes could perhaps accept without losing face.

Yet Trump wants to annex more territory into the US. His agenda is to increase the territory of the US to cover all of the North of the American continent with the large island next to it. And this is the proposed with a sublte manner of asking a man if his wife can be raped. — ssu

Trump’s communicative approach in foreign politics is coherent with his aggressive style in domestic politics. And he’s aversion toward to the Europeans is not just resentful because he sees Europeans as materially parasitising the US but also due to an ideological gap that aligns Europeans (mostly the EU) with Democrats and the Woke culture.
Voicing moral outrage to somehow induce the US to be more complacent toward the EU can backfire to the extent Trump could use it once more against Europeans (as Zelensky's appeal to common goals and solidarity backfired against Zelensky in the Oval Office).

OK, I do understand where you are going. And I'm just trying to say that this is absolutely loony.

Autocratic regimes of Russia and China aren't more prosperous than us. — ssu

American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. Given that the premise bears enough plausibility, especially to the Americans who supported Trump, and the consequence is logically consistent with the premise, then the argument is compelling. If the argument is compelling, and actions are substantially consistent with this argument, then focusing on how distasteful or shocking this foreign policy u-turn by the US is, hoping that US people and politicians will come to their senses and renormalise relations, looks more a waste of energy to me. Unless that’s a way to wake up not the US, but Europeans so they become more reactive in supporting policies aimed at countering/mitigating US aggressiveness.

Now, why the fuck would you want the same type of reaction against yourself? Really, nobody has answered here what is the reasoning behind alienating your allies and bowing down in front of your enemies? — ssu

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. Russia is needed to contain China (Israel helps too) and keep it isolated from Europe. To Trump Russia looks enough depleted of power projection means and always jealous of the US attentions. While the EU looks too opportunistic about US economic and military support while being too snobbish about US global policing.
Now both the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict must end to redirect energies where they need to be.

If you want to say, the US will fail because Europeans are going to do this and that, well first let’s see if they are going to do this and that, and if doing this and that is enough to change the US revolutionary approach to the multipolar world in favour to Europeans, or to sustain the US antagonism.

if scolding and badmouthing Zelensky, demanding a huge minerals deal without giving any security guarantees, cutting all aid and intel is bad — ssu

Very very very bad, but still consistent with the premises. Notice that the US with this deal has:
- Still one strong reason to remain in Ukraine
- Without Russia feeling military antagonized, since it’s officially about business not security (Putin even wants a deal on rare earth with the US on Russian territory)
- With strong benefits for the US (so the US will have a return of investment to make US people happy)
- And anticipating China’s protectionism over rare earth supply as a retaliation against the US tariff war

These are details, Putin is still at the top of the pyramid. There is nothing else to be said. Unless you would like to demonstrate that Putin can be trusted.

Did you watch the interview with Oleksandr Chalyi, where he literally states he believes the Russians were serious and ready for a negotiated settlement during the Istanbul agreements?

I think it’s still too early to be optimistic about European reactions.

Already Reform in the U.K. is split and in disarray. Established rightwing political commentators, such as Andrew Neil are washing their hands of Trump. Putin is Kryptonite, on a level in the public opinion with Hitler. I haven’t been following the reaction from the right in other European countries. However the resolve and camaraderie between EU leaders is clear to see.

Regarding the geopolitics of the situation my position hasn’t changed much from our previous conversation. Trump is not as yet an authoritarian leader, it’s just cosplay at this point. I very much doubt that he will be able to overturn the democracy in the U.S. In which case, this is a blip and we will be back to business as usual once Trump leaves office. Or it would result in a civil war. In which case, the U.S. will withdraw from the world stage while they sort out issues at home for a few years.

Although if the U.S. were to step back from the world stage for some time(for whatever reason), geopolitics would return to a peaceful state for that period. Russia would be licking her wounds and China would continue as before, playing the long game. With the noticeable difference that Europe would be a strong world power, conducting trade and cooperation with China and the U.S. may well find herself in third place.

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. Russia is needed to contain China (Israel helps too) and keep it isolated from Europe. To Trump Russia looks enough depleted of power projection means and always jealous of the US attentions. While the EU looks too opportunistic about US economic and military support while being too snobbish about US global policing.
Now both the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict must end to redirect energies where they need to be.

So this is what Trump is thinking? It’s still looney and quite a stretch.

Trump’s communicative approach in foreign politics is coherent with his aggressive style in domestic politics. And he’s aversion toward to the Europeans is not just resentful because he sees Europeans as materially parasitising the US but also due to an ideological gap that aligns Europeans (mostly the EU) with Democrats and the Woke culture. — neomac

I agree. But Trump really doesn't understand that this isn't entertainment. It really isn't "professional wrestling" that is a show. And the culture war stuff? Fuck that bullshit! We are talking about of war and peace, of having good relations or seeing each other.

Voicing moral outrage to somehow induce the US to be more complacent toward the US can backfire to the extent Trump could use it once more against Europeans (as Zelensky's appeal to common goals and solidarity backfired against Zelensky in the Oval Office). — neomac

For Trump it's just "great Television". Otherwise he is a total coward.Just look at how he is flailing with Canada. He immediately backs down if OH!... the stock market goes down. Oh no!!! Heck, Mexico even didn't have the time to react, only said to react on Sunday (tomorrow), and weak dick bully Trump had already backed down.

Trump can be handled by a) the US economy going down and b) his base getting angry at him. Luckily and thanks only to Trump, you are now facing a recession.

When it's about the sovereignty of nation states and issue of war... who gives a fuck about the stock market? It's a minor detail. People don't give a fuck about losing half of their savings, if the issue is about war or peace, their own lives and their countrymen's lives at stake. This isn't anymore about Ukraine, it's all about the Transatlantic alliance. Only the truly blind and the totally ignorant won't see this. But that is what is at stake.

American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. — neomac

No, it's not logical to break down the globalization that empowerd the US and made it to be prosperous. You can spend without any limits because the US has been a reserve currency, which IS A POLITICAL decision your allies have accepted, not an economic decision or a thing that has emerged just from the free market. Please let that sink in. The World has gone on for thousands of years without a "reserve currency" and can do that again. It's plain an simple: companies participating in foreign trade can use a basket of currencies and don't have to rely on a "reserve currency". Why should let's say Italy and Saudi-Arabia use dollars for oil trade. There is absolutely no reason for this ...other than the US had provided security guarantees for both countries.

And then just think of the immediate consequence of this rift between the US and Europe. What will emerge as an obvious result is strategic autonomy, a thing that France has promoted. Sure, France has been an ally of the US, fought in it's wars, yet has not depended on US arms exports. And that makes total sense, because I can easily imagine the rest of Europe being in situation as Ukraine is with the US when Trump acts like he does. If you really think good relations are gotten with bullying and threats, then think again.

[/

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. — neomac

And I repeat my line and my question to you: Trump didn't make us to spend more in defense. Putin did. Putin is a threat to Europe. Now you are siding with Putin. What does that make the US for us?

So why be friendly with Russia, a basket case of a country with huge problems, which is run by a dictator and could have it's own revolution, and then push away and anger an union of 500 million people that have thought of America and Americans as friends that share the same values? Why make us the adversary? That's what Trump is doing. It doesn't make any sense.

If Trump wants that, OK. The US won't be a superpower anymore. It will loose it's allies.

Did you watch the interview with Oleksandr Chalyi, where he literally states he believes the Russians were serious and ready for a negotiated settlement during the Istanbul agreements? — Tzeentch

Did you read the lead negotiator David Arakhamia where he literally states the following?

"There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees."

Arahamiya clarified that signing such an agreement without guarantees would have left Ukraine vulnerable to a second incursion.

“They would have come in more prepared, because they came in, in fact, unprepared for such resistance,” Arakhamia said.

(source: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645)

American-led globalisation empowered Russia and China so that they could challenge US global supremacy. If this is the case, then it’s logic that the US is compelled to break down American-led globalisation which includes a system of alliance and international institutions which are no longer functional to the US. — neomac

Yeah I think this is a plausible take on some of the motivations. Still it also feels like we're missing a piece here.

For example, why would the US government not attempt to milk the current relations with the EU to maximum advantage, e.g. trying to leverage it's military protection to get a more unified front against China?

Or why is the administration not tying Russia down with some kind of commitment before they hand a bunch of concessions to them?

Even if we ascribe purely Machiavellian intentions to the US government, the abject chaos and whiplash they're causing doesn't appear to be in their interest. This is also true if we compare recent US behaviour to that of Russia or China: Those countries would not suddenly and publicly throw their allies under the bus. They're generally careful to avoid public outbursts, at least by officials, and while they'll use economic and military pressure to gain advantages, they'll do so quietly.

Granted it might simply be a case of Occam's razor as @ssu pointed out: the reason it doesn't quite make sense is that we're not dealing with a monolithic and purely rational administration but a bunch of volatile egos.

You may want to watch that entire interview.

link the entire interview, I saw a few full interviews from Arakhamia and read articles. And commented on his views a while back:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Arakhamia&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=VWtyYWluZSBDcmlzaXM%3D&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=neomac&disc=Ukraine+Crisis&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child

The gist is that Russia can not be trusted, therefore security guarantees are ABSOLUTELY needed.
But any security guarantees that need Western European third parties must take into account their national interest. We both can agree that I need a loan from the bank to repay my debts toward you. That doesn't mean the bank will accept to give me a loan.
Besides Russia wanted to be able to veto the enforcement of such security guarantees while security guarantees were to defend Ukraine from Russia.

Trump can be handled by a) the US economy going down and b) his base getting angry at him. Luckily and thanks only to Trump, you are now facing a recession.

When it's about the sovereignty of nation states and issue of war... who gives a fuck about the stock market? It's a minor detail. People don't give a fuck about losing half of their savings, if the issue is about war or peace, their own lives and their countrymen's lives at stake. This isn't anymore about Ukraine, it's all about the Transatlantic alliance. Only the truly blind and the totally ignorant won't see this. But that is what is at stake. — ssu

Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. But not all Europeans are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia.
Threat perception varies over countries and one has to clarify the nature of the threat (which can range from conventional war and occupation to hybrid warfare and political interference which may lead to civil wars and regime change) and the degree of its incumbency.
On the other side, hegemony can be to powerful countries an obsession as much as existential threats are to less powerful countries. And the reason is that once one country loses hegemonic power than it can suffer from dangerous internal instabilities (as it happened in the US) and turn into prey of more powerful countries, especially if they had them as their historical enemies.
To my understanding the problem is and has always been not only about Ukraine, not even about the Transatlantic alliance, but about all the material and institutional conditions that allowed Western-style democracies to prosper.

No, it's not logical to break down the globalization that empowerd the US and made it to be prosperous. You can spend without any limits because the US has been a reserve currency, which IS A POLITICAL decision your allies have accepted, not an economic decision or a thing that has emerged just from the free market. Please let that sink in. The World has gone on for thousands of years without a "reserve currency" and can do that again. It's plain an simple: companies participating in foreign trade can use a basket of currencies and don't have to rely on a "reserve currency". Why should let's say Italy and Saudi-Arabia use dollars for oil trade. There is absolutely no reason for this ...other than the US had provided security guarantees for both countries.. — ssu

Your argument looks rather fallacious to me. Power comes from different sources and in must be assessed in relative terms. If dollar is a universal “reserve currency" that is a tool of power, it gives leverage to the US, but that’s not the only factor. And from the end of the Cold War up to now, the US power has decreased significantly wrt powerful competitors like China and Russia, even more so if they are allying to further erode US power. Europeans are helping China and Russia to erode not only US material power but also soft-power.
“Logic” means beliefs and actions are consistent with certain general premises which are held to be true. One can try to question the validity of the premises but I find the premises if not unquestionably true (also because uncertainty remains part of the problem of assessing political strategies), yet plausible enough to be rationally compelling. Indeed, US people and politicians can widely converge on such premises (remember that “pivot to Asia”, "fuck the EU" Nuland, steps toward disengaging the US from antagonizing Russia and from Middle East happened under Obama’s administration already). So much so that while Russia and China enjoyed greater internal stability and wider popular support wrt the US, the burden of US imperialism was nurturing domestic political instabilities. Hence the need to make American great AGAIN.

And then just think of the immediate consequence of this rift between the US and Europe. What will emerge as an obvious result is strategic autonomy, a thing that France has promoted. Sure, France has been an ally of the US, fought in it's wars, yet has not depended on US arms exports. And that makes total sense, because I can easily imagine the rest of Europe being in situation as Ukraine is with the US when Trump acts like he does. If you really think good relations are gotten with bullying and threats, then think again.. — ssu

As I said in another comment “I think it’s still too early to be optimistic about European reactions. No matter what they are going to decide to counter Russia or to revise the European collective approach to security, European leaders are still slowed down by an aging population which is sticking to mental habits and material privileges coming from the pre-Trump era, but which now do not look anymore adaptive. What needs to be changed is more radical than just re-arming. Europeans need an anthropological change that will take generations” .
Besides there is a lot on the table to digest by European politicians and people that is broader than re-arming or, even, raising a European army: namely, growing a European military industrial complex for strategic autonomy, nuclear deterrence and high-tech warfare (satellite, drones, AI, etc.).
Meanwhile the US and Russia can find ways to slow, destabilise or disrupt the European security collective strategy, also by spinning European countries’ domestic and inter-European polarization.

That’s what I keep doing, but you do not want to listen. I’ll repeat it in short. Pivot to Asia, the burden of Globalization, EU parasitism are the main premises of the reasoning. — neomac

And I repeat my line and my question to you: Trump didn't make us to spend more in defense. Putin did. Putin is a threat to Europe. Now you are siding with Putin. What does that make the US for us? — ssu

An enemy

So why be friendly with Russia, a basket case of a country with huge problems, which is run by a dictator and could have it's own revolution, and then push away and anger an union of 500 million people that have thought of America and Americans as friends that share the same values? Why make us the adversary? That's what Trump is doing. It doesn't make any sense.

If Trump wants that, OK. The US won't be a superpower anymore. It will loose it's allies. — ssu

Again I totally get that Trump is taking a risk. But European reaction, like rearming, has been taken into account (e.g. see again Miran’s plan). One has to see to what extent it will play to US favour though. The point is that Europeans do not seem in condition to strategically unite (actually their division can even be nurtured by Russia and the US). There are plenty of European bootlickers eager to serve as puppets.
Anyways, even if Europeans manage to join their forces effectively, the primary incumbent enemy is Russia and this condition plays again in US favour, since Russia would be exposed to security challenges coming from both Europe and China, more than the US is. So the US can play the good cop with Russia.
Concerning the 500k people EU market, notice that it was directly or indirectly more protectionist toward American products than to Chinese products and Russian oil/gas. At the same time Euro as a reserve currency was also a potential competitor to the US dollar if not even a tool of European emancipation from the US (read “A Plan for a European Currency” 1969 by Robert Mundell). So why would the US keep a EU/Euro big market which the US can’t benefit from?
Finally, in a multipolar world where nobody can rely on nobody for their security and that of their business, the US has still a good chance to preserve its supremacy as long as it keeps its strong economy, its technological and military superiority, geographic benefits (location and abundance of natural resources) and sound demographic (compared to Europe, Russia and China’s, see https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-chinese-german-and-russian-demographics). And a much narrower network of powerful/threatening countries, like Russia and Israel.

For example, why would the US government not attempt to milk the current relations with the EU to maximum advantage, e.g. trying to leverage it's military protection to get a more unified front against China? — Echarmion

Well, the US has tried to warn/persuade the EU to align more with the US interest, especially Germany. But since a soft-power approach didn’t work as desired. Now the US may be wanting to test historical allies and see if aggressive diplomacy can do the trick. Consequently, as I said in an earlier post, “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”

Or why is the administration not tying Russia down with some kind of commitment before they hand a bunch of concessions to them? — Echarmion

That’s indeed a good question to me too, as I admitted in a previous post: “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.”
One can just speculate without much supporting evidence. My idea is that, first, Trump cares much less about codified agreements and international law, than personal agreements between strong leaders of powerful/threatening countries. Private personal agreements between strong leaders come with some benefits: they hedge against the risks of sabotaging from internal and/or external enemies, they preserve the possibility to withdraw from these agreements whenever needed, and they grant greater freedom to adjust propaganda as needed. Second, Trump’s may have been already in contact with Putin by the end of last year, so it is possible that agreements have been already established a while back (https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/trump-putin-bob-woodward-book). Not to mention that Trump’s bromance with Putin was already developed during Trump’s first mandate since the elections, also thanks to a network of intermediaries (https://swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties). Third, and most importantly, official commitments are not necessary when mutual benefits and means of retaliations are secretly shared by both leaders. In its current predicament, maybe Russia can’t possibly afford a “vindictive” Trump as enemy, along with a rearmed EU. While the benefits of closing the Ukrainian conflict, removing US sanctions and regaining a superpower status beside the US can very much compensate for the losses. What this personalistic approach may however foreshadow is the following problem: how can Putin be sure that Trump will be in condition to fulfil his promises in the long term given the limited and temporally constrained power of the POTUS within a democratic regime? Well, an authoritarian turn in the US under Trump can likely increase Trump’s trustability in Putin’s eyes.

Or why is the administration not tying Russia down with some kind of commitment before they hand a bunch of concessions to them?

Even if we ascribe purely Machiavellian intentions to the US government, the abject chaos and whiplash they're causing doesn't appear to be in their interest. This is also true if we compare recent US behaviour to that of Russia or China: Those countries would not suddenly and publicly throw their allies under the bus. They're generally careful to avoid public outbursts, at least by officials, and while they'll use economic and military pressure to gain advantages, they'll do so quietly.

Granted it might simply be a case of Occam's razor as ssu pointed out: the reason it doesn't quite make sense is that we're not dealing with a monolithic and purely rational administration but a bunch of volatile egos. — Echarmion

I’ve already commented on this in previous posts [1]. In short, even if we discount Trumps’ personal resentment toward Europeans, Biden and Zelensky, and penchant for authoritarianism or egomania, he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. Risks must be taken into account and if Trump fails, a democratic successor can try to re-adjust the US foreign policies to mitigate the perduring damages.
In any case, even if the Trump fails, that doesn’t mean EU will succeed in addressing the challenges of the multi-polar world.

[1]

To make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me.

To me, leaders matter to the extent they are supported (actively or passively). Leaders matter to the extent they aggregate, represent, and guide collective interests coming from ordinary people, powerful economic and media lobbies, geopolitical experts, political entourage and advisors. And such interests are related to domestic and foreign challenges. So to make it all about the “erratic” or “vindictive” psychology of the leader or his official speeches or his personal conflict of interests is very myopic to me. One has to understand what are the perceived challenges from whoever supports Trump’s views, approach, official speeches in his background. That’s why I’m talking about logic: the exercise is to understand what could possible be the more widely shared premises (no matter how implausible they look to you) by collective interests which support Trump and then what most coherently can follow from such premises. This holds for Trump, for Putin, for Netanyahu, as any other political leader.
Besides Trump is the product of a political regime which is different from Putin’s. In the US political regime power is much more distributed and therefore constrained than in Russia. For sure Trump has amassed lots of power more than any of his recent predecessors, given the current US regime, and, given his mindset, he could very much exploit such favourable institutional conditions to push further for a regime change in the US in an authoritarian sense. The problem for the Europeans is that they have now not only Putin but also Trump as enemies.

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.

US people and politicians can widely converge on such premises (remember that “pivot to Asia”, "fuck the EU" Nuland, steps toward disengaging the US from competition with Russia and from Middle East happened under Obama’s administration already). So much so that while Russia and China enjoyed greater internal stability and wider popular support wrt the US, the burden of US imperialism was nurturing domestic political instabilities. Hence the need to make American great AGAIN.

However the resolve and camaraderie between EU leaders is clear to see. — Punshhh

With the noticeable difference that Europe would be a strong world power — Punshhh

It's a very long way for Europe to become a united world power. See, UK is not even in the EU (the Brexit, remember?). I don't see the point of getting enthusiastic over strategic revisions that are still on the making. And then let our imagination jump to desirable future scenarios as if they were already within reach. Things can go awfully wrong in so many ways.

As far as I can recall, that’s the first time you are bringing this argument up with me. And I really appreciated it. No irony. At least it’s something new and definitely worth discussing.
Some more questions: what empirical evidence support your claim that “socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production”? And what do you mean by “strategically sound”? — neomac

Well I've mentioned quite a lot that the war is good for arms manufacturers, but it maybe the first time I've pointed out that the arms manufacturers don't actually want a total war, as that leads to socialism.

In the literature it's referred to as "war communism" to stress the irony that capitalist elites love immediately building what is essentially a communist central planned economy where everyone the state needs contributes what they can to the war effort completely outside any sort of free market dynamics; conscription being the biggest such socialist agenda.

Of course socialism in this context is used to simply represent top down state programs where most value is contributed on a volunteer or quasi-volunteer basis (both in terms of pay and also possibly not having much a choice in the matter), such as in Soviet economy. Of course, socialism here has nothing to do with workers owning the means of production.

The reason this is more strategically sound is that orders of magnitude more value is generated for the same cost, which should be common sense as a quasi-volunteer (especially conscription) produces enormously more soldiers for the same cost.

Think it through. Plenty of Europeans volunteered to go fight in Ukraine, how many more would volunteer (or quasi-volunteer, as in perhaps be paid something but far below market value) to work in factories producing shells. People would be lining up!! Plenty qualified people to boot.

Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. — neomac

Are you really sure about that? Putin hates the US. Yet the Maga idiots thinks that Putin being a cultural conservative and against Gay Europe is a friend. As if Putin would break ties with China to a few years of Trump chaos? He surely knows that 80% of Americans don't trust him (Putin). His intention is to destroy US power in the World. How isn't that a danger?

But not all European are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia. — neomac

Before weren't, but now the issue is of the whole defense treaty. Don't underestimate how historical this is. If Trump withdraws the US troops and perhaps leaves a small detachment to Orban's Hungary, don't think that people have gotten the message already.

At least for Sweden and Finland it isn't so bad because we have had to have already a military capability to defend ourselves. It's actually countries like Netherlands or others that really have trusted their security policy on NATO that have to think it over now.

Our politicians might be diplomatic, but for example reading comment section in the biggest newspaper, the majority think that Trump is a traitor, a Russian agent and a Quisling. In fact, the few politicians that have said something positive about Trump are getting their asses chewed off by the public.

he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. — neomac

Actually, he isn't. Not in any way now. And Trump knows it, actually.

Getting your allies to participate more in the cost isn't the same thing as going against your allies, against the shared values and becoming an enabler for your adversary.

Alliances are a lot more than transactions like buying a service, just as soldiers of fortune are far less trustworthy than soldiers that have taken an oath to serve their country. NATO has been around for 76 years, so I guess there has been something to it. Yet when a country doesn't care of those values, when everything is just a transaction, a lot has gone wrong.

Very strange statement from the EU on Syria:

The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.

Civilians have to be protected in all circumstances in full respect of international humanitarian law.

The EU also calls on all external actors to fully respect the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria. The EU condemns any attempts to undermine stability and the prospects for a lasting peaceful transition, inclusive and respectful of all Syrians in their diversity.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/spokesperson-statement-latest-developments-syria_en

Seems pretty clear that it's HTS/government forces committing the atrocities. Civilians are fleeing for safety to the Russian base in the area. Israel has also ventured in to protect Druze minorities. Perhaps there is a real drifting apart of the EU versus the American worldview. This seems pretty black and white to me.

Alliances are a lot more than transactions like buying a service, just as soldiers of fortune are far less trustworthy than soldiers that have taken an oath to serve their country. — ssu

True, but it would make sense that Trump thinks of them as purely transactional. Of course we also don't really know how much of the current policy can be ascribed to Trump as a person.

Well, the US has tried to warn/persuade the EU to align more with the US interest, especially Germany. But since a soft-power approach didn’t work as desired. Now the US may be wanting to test historical allies and see if aggressive diplomacy can do the trick. Consequently, as I said in an earlier post, “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” — neomac

Under the mental framework you're suggesting, the US does not actually have any interest in European military capability though, has it? Under that framework Europe is an "entangling alliance" to ditch and replace with more easily controllable client state relations.

Scaring Europe into investing significantly more into defense is a workable strategy, as current events demonstrate. Yet the US would have to start injecting itself back into the debate before the European plans have really solidified. Or else bet on European attempts failing. Which I guess could be a way to go about it but seems like an unnecessary risk.

One can just speculate without much evidence to support it. My idea is that, first, Trump cares much less about codified agreements and international law, than personal agreements between strong leaders of powerful/threatening countries. — neomac

Yeah, that does seem plausible. Though Trump is only part of the mystery to me. There's also Elon Musk and JD Vance, who seem to be pushing US policy towards Russia and Ukraine in the same direction. Thus this seems to be more than just a personality quirk in Trump.

I doubt these people honestly fear a WW3 scenario, or truly care about the human suffering. Something is in it for them, but I don't know what.

Well, an authoritarian turn in the US under Trump can likely increase Trump’s trustability in Putin’s eyes. — neomac

Is Putin offering support for a US autocratic turn in the form of Russian information operations and possibly some kind of public gesture? That's a frightening possibility.

I’ve already commented on this in previous posts [1]. In short, even if we discount Trumps’ personal resentment toward Europeans, Biden and Zelensky, and penchant for authoritarianism or egomania, he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. — neomac

I would credit that if it didn't look like the administration's foreign policy changes every other day.

I can see the US adopting a radically different model:
Suppressing internal dissent by taking over the nations information channels with the help of the tech oligarchs.

Restructuring the US economy by using tariffs to force strategically vital industries (like semiconductor manufacturing) to relocate to the US. Thus insulating the US from any shocks caused by global trade disruption and overall improving freedom of action.

Extracting the US from entangling alliances and instead using the size of the US economy, it's military capabilities and it's hold over much of the information infrastructure to force weaker states into more explicit client relationships.

I can see someone adopting this as an actual strategy, and moreover I can see how it would play into the mindsets of various groups with powerful influences in the US, from radical Christians to the tech oligarchs.

My issue isn't that I cannot see any reason why the US would make radical changes. My issue is that the changes we actually see are haphazard and chaotic. In particular, apart from the suppression of internal dissent, there seems to be little reason to rush decisions as much as they're doing.

Should be perhaps on the Israel/Middle East-thread, but anyway...

The really good thing about Syria is that we haven't heard from Syria. It's been quite, at least until now.
Naturally as the Alawites have been in the coastal area (which didn't see fighting in the Civil War), clashes between Alawites and the Sunni majority has been the real threat here. After all, Assad governed by putting the minority in power and punished the majorities and made on purpose the relations hostile (as that Alawites would have to get protection from him). Also do note that the HTS drove to Damascus and didn't go through the region where the Alawites live. Now perhaps the to take that part?

And do note one thing. USAID aid stopped to Syria, right? Might add something to the equation.

To be honest, the only believable sources are the UN and enough credible news sources giving the same information. And actually some Israeli newspapers, as they still hold to the values of journalism. Netanyahu government obviously wants to keep Syria as a failed state, which I personally object.

Perhaps there is a real drifting apart of the EU versus the American worldview. This seems pretty black and white to me. — BitconnectCarlos

Even if I haven't looked at the issues, for starters:

Where have been for hmmm.... decades? EU has totally different views from the US on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. There's no AIPAC running the Middle Eastern policy. There's only Germany with their anxiety of having killed all those Jews. And that's basically it. But as we have been allies, naturally the differences have been pushed aside.

So when Trump leaves NATO (which Elon wants him to do and naturally Trump does what Elon says), then I'm sure that EU will be likely more like Ireland in this issue, since it doesn't have to keep in line with the US as the US isn't an ally anymore or a Superpower.

So yes, Europe and the US will likely drift separate ways in many issues as there isn't the alliance anymore between the US and Europe.