Perhaps it's time to use Occam's razor.

Nope, nobody is creating this as another smokescreen to keep both the public and Trump distracted. It might become a dystopia, but nobody's building for it to be so.

This all is the doing of Trump's and Vance's erratic behavior when Trump is surrounded by yes-men who take at heart anything the Emperor thinks one day. The whole argument of there being "a method to the madness" and Trump playing a 4D-chess are just hopeful dreams that this would end in something better. It isn't. It's an old man with a short attention span thinking he can do nearly anything he wants.

Americans should really wake up to the enormous damage being done now by Trump. If you really cheer now for Europe to "take care of it's own security", you should understand that it means that you the alliance is breaking apart thanks to Trump. This isn't about "Europe paying it's share" because there isn't going to be an alliance. Trump has no intention of strengthening the alliance. He really doesn't need NATO. When your visionary vice-President argues that Putin's Russia isn't a threat to Europe, his ignorance is quite set (as is his defeatism). When they intervene in the elections of European countries and try to push political parties of their making, that is a sign of outright hostility. You cannot hide it.

For Trump and Vance their actual enemy is liberal Europe, all these countries that have thought about being allies of the US and in defense of a rules based international order. Not Russia. And since not every country is lead by Victor Orban and Bibi Netanyahu, there are many of these "allies" they actually hate. This hatred is quite evident to see, actually. For these it's "Freedom of speach" values hurled at them, for Russia it's the new "realpolitik" of never criticizing Putin and telling Kremlin lines/lies. And trying to negotiate a peace on behalf of Russia.

Americans really should wake up and notice where Trump is steering your country into.

I think it’s power and praise. A Nobel prize would be nice. Plus war is costly and unpopular. He’s driven by media, as well, and can read the writings on the wall. He likes money too, of course, but I don’t think that’s a major factor here. — Mikie

Well, think of Elon and Trump. Elon gave him a lot of money to his campaign. Without Elon, he likely wouldn't be in the White House. So how he behaves towards Elon shows how he bows for money.

Power has gone to his head. What else could you say about the Mar-a-Gaza idea or the annexation of Greenland (even if that was already floated in the first Trump administration).

Next thing might be that NATO dies. Now people would like to think that this might be an outburst like France leaving NATO for a while and then coming back. But the way Trump handles these issues, I'm not sure. It really might be the last days of NATO, as Stavridis here says.



Only if the Americans would wake up to what disasters Trump is making, but likely that won't happen. MAGA crowd will cheer as Trump dismantles the US.

Next we will have the trade wars. You can just guess how that trade war will reinforce the current break up.

Let’s not forget that just this week, the US refused to endorse a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion.

Trump is to all intents a Kremlin asset now. — Wayfarer

Yes he is. Putin likely has dangled deals of hundreds of billions to American corporations to Trump, likely with few billions to Trump to pocket himself. Somebody (I don't remember who) commented that likely the math involved here with the demands that Ukraine has to pay are in similar ball range (as Trump confuses these things). The priority here is the normalization of relations and Putin getting a deal that he wants: The peace Putin would be OK with are Russia getting also the parts of the Oblasts that aren't in Russian control, Ukraine not in NATO and without security guarantees. Perhaps "Euro-peacekeepers" that can be bullied around like peacekeepers are bullied (like actors like Israel), but no serious military capability for Ukraine. And of course Zelenskyi thrown a way and a possible Putin puppet to replace him.

It’s good that Trump wants peace. — Mikie

Unfortunately I think you are wrong.

This is the lie Trump tells to us, the window dressing of his dubious objectives. What Trump wants is money. And Putin likely has promised him money. Promises of money are enough for Trump. That's the only reason why Trump would so recklessly, so enthusiastically try to force everything down the throat of Zelenskyi. That would explain the ambush of Zelenskyi.

Anybody, including Trump, just wanting for the deaths to stop, wouldn't go on to attack one side of the negotiation the way that Trump did.

Russia will keep the territory they annexed and there will be a guarantee of no NATO membership — Mikie

Russia actually wants the Oblasts that it doesn't totally control. Remember that Russia has already annexed them, so for Putin they are already part of Russia. That territory isn't negotiable. Ukraine did push Russian out of the Western side on Dnipro (Dnieper), yet the oblasts that Russia has annexed are situated also on the Western side. This would be a huge defensive difficulties to a post-peace treaty Ukraine.

They’re not going to win even with US backing. — Mikie

Don't be a defeatist.

Russia lost in Afghanistan.
Russia lost to Poland.
Russia lost to Japan.

Russia can have these military defeats and has to back down. It has happened. With a true backing of Ukraine this could a possibility. Before it would happen, Russia would negotiate for peace.

Even puny Finland all alone without such backing as Ukraine has, could get a peace deal in the Winter War, because Stalin was nervous that he could face French and British troops in Finland. They were intended to come here (in the end they were used in Norway). And this is the reality one has to see here: Russian will negotiate of peace only if it's really preferable to continuing the war. Hence Ukraine, if it would get a peace negotiation, it should come from a position of strength. Ukraine isn't yet collapsing. But thanks to the help of Trump to Russia, it might in future.

In general the feeling I get is that these people don't care about the fate of Ukraine or Europe in the near future because they're imagining that once they've remade America, the rest of the world will either follow or cease to be relevant. — Echarmion

If they wouldn't care, why then the hostility? No, really. Vance and Trump have absolutely no intension to be on the side of Ukraine... or on Western Europe. They want to cozy up with Russia and that's why the attack and the hostility. They are pressuring Ukraine to take what Russia wants, hence they are here doing Putin's bidding.

When you throw somebody under the bus, you have to show that the person earned it, had it coming, that he's the bad guy. It has to be Ukraine's fault.

And it will be worse, because Europeans won't so clearly throw Ukraine under the bus. This will irritate Trump even more, and likely the next thing will be NATO alliance itself. As John Bolton has said, Trump has wanted to exit NATO during his previous administration. I totally believe this. It think it's going to happen, because Putin can play Trump so well.

That is the ultimate goal what Putin wants, and Trump is doing his best to do that.

I do agree with the sentiment, but Zelensky had a purpose for going to the White House, and he failed. Maybe there was no actual way to succeed. But this was certainly not the optimal way for that to go, even taking into account the personalities of Trump and Vance. — Echarmion

Do understand that the US under Trump isn't in support of Ukraine, Trump is against Ukraine. Ukraine is the problem. Ukraine won't bow down to what Russia wants, so Zelensky has to go!

You criticize and attack your enemies, you don't speak anything bad about those who you support. This cannot be more clear now. There is no other way to see it.

Hence there was no way for an actual deal to succeed, because Ukraine isn't yet in a position that it's defense would be collapsing. If there would have been a deal to be made, then there would have been an actual meeting behind closed doors, not ambush like we witnessed. Now Trump will punish Ukraine, because he is for Russia.

What Trump will push for the peace deal that Putin wants, a deal that Putin wouldn't otherwise get. People have to wake up on this. Trump won't lift a finger to anything that Putin does. That's the real problem. Europe has to arm itself, because the US is now a willing sidekick of an Putin, whose appetite will grow now very much. This won't end with Ukraine.

Trump is getting us to a situation where it isn't just about Ukraine anymore. Putin can surely taste the blood in the water now.

One of the features of Trump's MAGA (Make America Grotesque Again) is that he is slashing a lot of government programs that aim to assist the least advantaged to achieve--not well-being, but something more than the flat-out minimum. Landing an apartment in public housing, for instance, is a huge step up from living on the street, even if it is a but spartan, The minimal welfare payment for single, childless adults is painfully low, but if one can qualify for other programs (like Medicaid, public housing, and food assistance) it doesn't lead to lavish well-being, but it's better than untended disease, living in a box, and eating from garbage cans. — BC

It's not the poorest and the unemployed that make a revolution, it's those that do have work and do own a home.

Unemployment or homelessness is a personal stigma. People in the most dire situation aren't going to make a revolution. I remember so well once in my youth when my country was hit with one of it's histories hardest economic depressions visiting the Central Bank and an economist saying bluntly to us students the reality: "The unemployed won't revolt." And he was right. The highest unemployment, higher than during the Great Depression, and they didn't revolt. The administration went on through the worst economic crisis and the growth path was worse. No revolt from the masses of unemployed.

How did the Ukrainian delegation, with Zelensky at the head, let this happen? — Echarmion

Trump and Vance are in Putin's camp and talking heads for the Russian dictator. How else would it go? Zelensky has to be honest to his people, who are fighting this war.

I just hope that Western Europe has enough backbone and stand up against Trump and support Ukraine. I'm sure that the asshole Trump will demand Europe not to support Ukraine and go along with this pressuring of the victim. Vance going of with Kremlin talking points is despicable.

US was the leader of the free world for 80 years. Not anymore.

So much for "Man of Peace" getting the Nobel peace-prize. The fucking Putin-loving moron.

Seems that your God Emperor didn't get the Nobel peace prize.

I cheer retaliatory tariffs. — NOS4A2

Then you cheer for Canada, Europe and Mexico! Because they didn't start this stupidity.

Good for you!!!

Trump the lunatic has to be stopped.

I would suspect the US is going to be in a very bad way before too long. But then anyone with half a brain could always have seen that by ‘Making America Great Again’, he actually means totally f***ing it up. — Wayfarer

But here I think the UK and it's Brexit shows just how otherwise sane people will fall for insanity and totally unsubstantiated promises and views if not for outright lies. There were no benefits of braking well established trade. Just look at the Brexit thread: the British PF members weren't enthusiastic about the Brexit and it's outcome far earlier than the actual economic effects became reality. But the denial persisted for a long time. Soon would the economic benefits of the UK cutting it's ties to the EU become apparent! Just wait... and then we got to the Labour government, when the Brexiteers could start venting their anger on just how bad things are. That is the likely future in the American case too.

Do notice that nobody is cheering for the trade war and the tariffs. Not even @NOS4A2 (even if he lives in Canada).

When I look at European media and newspapers here, it's evident. Already last week sent shock waves around and the general consensus seems that the US will be now an untrustworthy ally which doesn't share the same values as Europe does. Only the politicians in charge try to moderate their comments and speak diplomatically in order not to anger Trump. Add to this trade wars starting what, next week?

This should be very alarming as this is the way you do brake friendships and make the World far more dangerous. I've been listening to what Canadian politicians have to say about the current relationship with the US and never I've heard so bitter and offended remarks. Questioning the sovereignty of another country isn't a laughing matter, as Americans seem to think.

I think I was the one who told you that a trade war precipitated the Great Depression. Now you're teaching it back to me. — frank

It just sucks knowing that things will be worse off for everyone.

Basically because the US can destroy Russia without Europe's help. If the US needed European support, it would be a different story. — frank

Then there's the actual things to do when the US has to be involved. Which aren't so biblical wars as WW3. And then having allies is crucial.

Just think about it. Trump is likely going to war in Mexico and then the absurd Mar-a-Gaza idea. And this from him when there is no serious NEW crisis around or an attack that has to responded to!

I find it puzzling how many still take Trump's word for much of anything. — jorndoe

For him it's just words, but his administration will go onward with those words.

The US and Australia signed a free trade agreement in 2005. Australian officials are now negotiating tariffs that Trump wants to impose on them.
The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement was signed by Trump in 2018. — jorndoe

This is the whole irony. Trump simply just wants a trade war. The reasons he takes out of thin air.

That's why I've been so pessimistic about the outcome.

It has the potential to. A trade war would help American labor as long as it doesn't coincide with a panic that crashes the system. — frank

If tariffs would be so awesome, why then have they not created the wealth. They don't. That's why country after country has stopped using them.

Tariffs give the domestic industry not to compete with the outside World. They can rest on their laurels and at best simply higher their prices to the level of the foreign competitors. And why not? That brings more money to them especially if people need the stuff, like for eating.

The argument for tariffs and trade barriers is reasonable when you lack the technology or the industry in total and want to create it from nothing. Then trade barriers have worked. But the US is already a top player in global economics. This reasoning doesn't simply work.

And let's remember on the eve of this most stupid trade war, the Smoot Hawley tariffs from the 1930's:

(Investopedia) The Smoot-Hawley Act was created to protect U.S. farmers and businesses from foreign competitors.

The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%. Over 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods. Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression. More than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it. Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

Now Trump is doing exactly the same, but even higher tariffs when the World is far more integrated than it was in the 1930's.

I'm not sure why you're having this reaction. Are you afraid Russia is going to invade your country and Europe will just stand by and let it happen? — frank

I could give a thorough explanation, but I would be repeating myself a lot. But simply put it. If you think that Russia will stop at Ukraine is like believing that a millionaire once he has had his first million will be satisfied and not go for the next million.

So, I'll first ask you:

If just a short while ago Putin was paying Taleban for killed American troops, why do you want now to give him Ukraine on a silver platter and favor the same regime now? Russia has called the US an enemy state and Russian ideology has been anti-American during the Putin era. Why then be submissive to an overtly hostile nation, that is far weaker to you, which doesn't play by the rules you have earlier supported? And why then be hostile against countries, that have been friendly towards you?

Putin surely can play Trump by talking of being allies again and hinting at great deals. But why go with that?

We can go over the reasons why Russian imperialism and military aggression is bad for Europe, but now the question is just why to start appeasing those, who see the US as it's enemy and alienate those, who thought being your allies?

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

Some, but not many. These kind of racist fears are not what many had in mind when opposing the overreactions or excesses of DEI or anti-racism. And that's what they were: workplace excesses that usually showed just how easily especially one can lose a job in the US.

Yet then to go on with the current administration going full word-nazi and erasing "incorrect" words? JD Vance stating that these kinds of minor issues to be a far higher level of threats to Europe than the Russia military aggression and real war? Talk about an overreaction on a monumental scale out of proportions, which indeed makes everybody question just how sinister the real objective is.

Let's remember that Jordan Peterson got his fame and publicity by going against a Canadian law could be interpreted as setting rules for language. That kind of "word policing", which likely didn't have much effect in Canada, gave rise to Peterson. And now you have the Trump administration erasing words like equity from government documents and websites and people going through personal mails of government employees to fire them if they have been against the administration.

I remember one Democrat openly admitting that the party went too far in the DEI / anti-racism narrative thinking that it's the next step after the civil rights movement. That was an honest statement, but then, as typically happens, the counter reaction from the MAGA crowd wipes absolutely everything aside.

The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire. — frank

And do you think that starting a trade war, which likely ends up in a global downturn, will help that?

Do you think raising the prices of consumer products will help that? How does it help you when Canada understands that it has to turn away from US trade and start trading more with other countries, like with the EU and have stronger economic ties with the union? Tell me, how does that help you?

Your economy isn't in it's infancy, those American corporations have themselves pushed the factories into China, just like Elon has in China. Now thinking that tariffs will help you, when they clearly won't (just look at what similar thinking in the 1930's ended up with).

That is America. — frank

You don't want to have a welfare state, you don't want universal health care or free education. You could easily have that, but you do not want it. You want to give tax breaks to the rich and believe that the best thing is not only to man the highest positions in the administration with billionaires, but to give unchecked power to the richest man in the World. That's the United States Americans seem to want and vote for. Because obviously, for some reason you buy the argument that is this rule by the rich or then everything else is Venezuela type socialism.

It's all that you are doing yourself by your own choosing. And loosing that leadership role won't make it anymore easier. Actually it's the American defense companies that will be hurt when Europe starts focusing on it's own military industry.

In fact, you can both have a strong military and a welfare state and people be prosperous. But that means that the rich do have to pay taxes. Sweden during the Cold War is actually a great example of this: a rather small country could have it's own military industrial complex capable of building top of the line fighters, submarines and even building an own nuclear weapon. And also creating that welfare state.

The thing that either it's guns or butter is the wrong idea.

AG Bondi claimed on Fox News that we might see some Jeffry Epstein info today. I suspect it’s a huge bust, and anything pertaining to who else might have been involved will or has gone missing, but who knows? — NOS4A2

LOL!!! :lol:

Well, this administration will SURELY erase every connection that Trump had with Epstein, who "liked girls on the young side" as Trump called it.

(Of course, what is cut out in this video are the young girls dancing that Trump is commenting to Epstein)



* * *

Then back to Trump being Trump, as usual...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XkgoXUyGlHM

The US has a giant nuclear arsenal with the ability to deploy them with ICBMs, medium range missiles, submarines, and Air Force bombers. Why does the US need NATO? I'm asking. — frank

You do know that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US has, btw.

Why do you need NATO?

Let's see.

1) You could do inflict most crushing military victory when you created an alliance and got UN support when George Bush formed a huge alliance and liberated Kuwait. But that was during the time when the US gave a thought to building alliances as it had had to anticipate always the reactions of the Soviet Union. There was a lot of support from NATO countries, one British division and one French division alongside a large amount of aircraft and naval vessels. It all adds up. Just with few men killed, you basically destroyed one of the largest armies in the World, which was on the cusp of truly getting a nuclear deterrent. And you understood not to go further than the liberation of Kuwait (as back then you valued thei views of your allies).

2) You needed NATO in Afghanistan. In the end there were more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US troops.

3) You needed NATO Countries in Iraq. But here... as the neocons didn't care about alliances, you got only basically the UK. In the end it didn't go as planned, too few men and then when you actually did win the Al Qaeda, you went away and got ISIS to emerge from the void.

4) Obama didn't bomb Syria and hence lost his face by drawing an imaginary line with NATO members, even UK, saying no. Here you saw your own limitations WHEN NATO countries wouldn't join you. But naturally you forget it. And anyway, Syrian civil war came to it's conclusion no thanks to you.

5) You will need NATO countries if you get into a war with China. Or you will just deal with it all alone?

Right. Let's think about that.

Imagine how that will go when no Asian country is willing to come to your side when you face of China and NATO countries and Australia just "hope that tensions between China and the US will de-escalate". The idea of going alone just shows how piss has gone into the head of the US. Just as the US doesn't seem to care about the values it has shared with the West anymore (but goes with Russia and North Korea). And wants to start the most stupid trade war. Well, pay then happily the tariffs thanks to Trump.

It really comes down to this: when you cannot understand how much of the current prosperity you have is thanks to the Superpower status, it's really the epic failure of your own government to make it's case for this. Other countries have happily given the US the leadership role. But once other countries don't listen to you, you will understand it.

More of Elon's dubious attempt to create a 400 million contract for Tesla. Suddenly a +400 000 USD contract under Biden administration became a 400 000 000 USD contract. Or attempt on one.

(NPR) It appeared as if the State Department was taking steps to award Elon Musk's Tesla a $400 million government contract to buy armored electric vehicles to securely transport diplomats. The move to set in motion a lucrative contract to a company controlled by a high-profile ally of President Trump seemed so bold it surprised even longtime observers of the norm-busting president.

When asked about it, the State Department issued a statement saying the purchase is now on hold with no plans of fulfilling the contract, pointing out that talks with Tesla began during the Biden administration.

But NPR has obtained a State Department document detailing that Biden's State Department planned to spend just $483,000 in the 2025 fiscal year on buying electric vehicles and $3 million for supporting equipment, like charging stations. It represented less than 1% of the hundreds of millions of dollars likely destined for Tesla vehicles after the Trump administration quietly revised a State Department procurement document.

The vast discrepancy in the numbers raises the question: Was it an error or a deliberate action?

A former Biden White House official familiar with the State Department's plans told NPR the steps taken to advance $400 million worth of government business to Tesla appear to be intentional.

"I don't think this is a clerical error. It was likely someone who is new in [the] State [Department] who decided, 'OK, we're gonna do this with Tesla,'" said the former official, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

The person said the State Department and Tesla had agreed during the Biden administration to conduct research about armoring electric vehicles, but no money had been set aside to purchase armored Teslas for the State Department. A total budget of $483,000 had been approved to buy light-duty EVs as possible State Department vehicles. That plan was moving forward as recently as November 2024.

It's a perverse way to go: to say to fight corruption, one enables rampant corruption. To say one is improving the lives of the ordinary people, one makes everything even worse with few insiders going from corruption to outright looting and kleptocracy. To say one is for freedom of speech, one implements the most outrageous word-policing that is fitting to an authoritarian state and an environment of ruling by fear.

Yet Trump supporters are totally fine with this, because they have blocked away any criticism towards their leader. This is the way that conspiracy theorists work: they think that everything has been this huge conspriracy, and what they want is to have the conspiracy of their own as they don't believe that the antidote to conspiracies would be openness and stronger democratic institutions. People are sheeple, so it is necessary to use propaganda. Now the correct propaganda of the anti-deep state people. Conspiracy theorists are the enemy of a democracy, because they don't believe for starters that a democracy could or would be possible.

One of the striking features to me of Trumpian politics is that it is mostly vindictive — Benkei

Just look at his official photo.

Coupled with being badly informed or misinformed, we get what people consider irrational on the outside. But it appears very rational; just mean and low. — Benkei

Is being mean and going low rational? I would think it's an emotional response, not rational. People did forecast that after the chaotic end of his last presidency and all the court drama that Trump has endured, he would be embittered and vindictive. And that's what he appears to be.

Trump is destroying all the pillars that the US has stood on. The US doesn't hold anymore values it once shared with Europe, and Trump will wreck the US economy as it wrecks it's own government. When the reasoning is based on such ignorant and foolish hallucinations like the US would become more prosperous by starting huge trade wars with everybody or that raising up prices with tariffs doesn't raise prices, the end result will going to be bad.

But there's the crowd that wants this to happen and live in a dream world where Trump is doing the right thing. When it all fails, as it will, they will just immerse themselves with even more ludicrous reasons how Trump's efforts were undermined by the deep state and the evil foreigners.

I thought NATO had to do with opposing communism. Communism is gone. — frank

NATO is a security treaty organization, which the European Union lacks. As states do have security issues even after Communism is gone and we don't have the old Cold War going, there is a need for NATO.

Why NATO has worked is because it's so totally dominating alliance. Nothing comes close to it. And European countries have arranged their militaries to work under NATO and with NATO. If there is no NATO, a lot of countries need to radically change their posture. And European countries have seen the obvious advantages with having an alliance.

Without NATO, Europe is a far more volatile and destabilized place. It's quite important that the armed forces of Europe are basically working together and not being against each other. The tensions between Greece and Turkey do show that there are and could be more tensions. Otherwise there could be tensions between Hungary or Romania etc. So just as with European integration, there's a solid reason for an European security integration.

Then just add one former Empire that is apparently reconquering it's territory, so you do have an urgent need for a security arrangement. Unlike some try to argue, there is a real threat that Russia poses for Europe.

The US isn't defending itself through NATO now. It's just exercising global influence. I think most Americans would question the wisdom of continuing to take that role. What's in it for us? — frank

The strength of the US or it's role of being a Superpower has come from it's ability to have allies, that voluntarily give it a leadership role. Europeans have been OK with this. The whole reason for us to listen what an US President blabbers about.

With no alliance, your out of the equation. Europe will go it's own way and won't listen to you. It won't buy your weapons and won't listen to you, because you are untrustworthy.

And as I've said, the whole reason for the USD to be a reserve currency is because of the Superpower status. NOT because of your economic position. Why the hell would we give you the position of reserve currency, if you are just our competitor and nothing else? That is ludicrous!

The impact will be that you won't have so warm ties with Europe and simply be a competitor, like China. Once we don't share the values, then we will drift away from each other. You really think that is a good idea?

Luckily I don't represent Gen Z.

Trump didn't come into power in a vacuum.

From your link:

White working-class men are hardest-hit: only
14.6% entered higher education in 2021, the
lowest of any ethnic or socioeconomic group.
One in three is economically inactive – a figure
that has doubled since the early 1990s – leaving
nearly two million young men out of work.
This leaves many struggling to find their place
in the world.

And this is the reason why the fascination. And just why the crusade against wokeism and the support for anti-immigration policies. And why populist movements are so popular.

It's an universal phenomenon in the West. I assume it's even a bigger issue in the UK, which has long had a very clear class system. Usually for boys who relate to the blue-collar background, school isn't a place for. Yet the similar issue is happening also in the Nordic countries, where a similar class divide isn't so apparent in the society.

You'll hear how it goes personally then. Let's just remember that this is the time when Trump has the backing in Congress.

I remember one former Australian prime minister saying that the way to get Trump's respect is simply hold your position. And when looking at the "deals" he makes, he isn't a good negotiator. I think he hasn't gone after Australia yet.

I think that Panama and Denmark just try to avoid the conversation getting back to them as there will be enough calamity in other issue that Trump dips his head into.

With Musk it's quite the same. But it's welcoming to see that from all of the people that have said that "don't give importance to Musk's emails" to their government employees it's Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. Having then public tantrums in your own social media isn't the most adult thing for Musk to do.

Zero comprehension of the separation of powers. — Wayfarer

And they will not get it. Starting from Trump.

So good luck having that Civil war of yours, because likely you have to fight to get back your Republic. If Americans still want to live in a Republic, that is.

Which is an over-reaction. But so is NATO. Its 30 years out of date, at least. — AmadeusD

How was it out of date? It has worked well.

No NATO state has been attacked and NATO countries haven't gone to war with each other (like Greece and Turkey). If there would be no NATO, the Baltic States and Eastern Europe would be in the similar situation as Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine are now. Or worse. Putin would already have been pressuring them for a long time. And perhaps Greece and Turkey would have had a border war.

The absolute lie promoted here is that Russia wouldn't acting as it is if there wouldn't be a NATO. This is simply shown not to be true when you look at Moldova... and it's frozen conflict. Moldova never has approached NATO in anyway, yet it has Russian troops inside it. Likely there would be "frozen conflicts" or similar events in the Baltic States (like Russian peacekeepers in the country), if they wouldn't be in NATO. This is the fact that the Putin appeasers simply refuse to even think about. Putin is the one making his country "Great Again".

And when one NATO country was attacked by non-state actors, article 5 was implemented. And to help the US. And in the end there were more NATO forces than American forces in Afghanistan, when the US decided to pull out after Trump had shown his brilliance in making surrender deals.

And the alternative? Just look at the alliances that the US has in Asia. Bilateral defense agreements with the actual countries having nothing to do with each other. South Korea and Japan don't work together. The only "alliance" is adding UK to the US-Australian bilateral agreement, which is quite natural since UK and Australia already have a defense agreement. No SEATO there anymore.

Besides, the Western European Union (WEU) was dissolved. Everybody, including the US, was happy with NATO back then.

Now perhaps a similar arrangement has to be made with Canada, UK and Norway and Iceland have to taken into a new defense pact as the US seems not to need any allies. Perhaps taking orders from the Kremlin is enough.

What do you make of it?
(Though tempting, I haven't brought up any psychological terms.) — jorndoe

You can talk absolutely crazy things and people won't notice how crazy they are, if you say you are "just thinking out of the box" or don't care about the "Overton window".

When Trump pulls the US out of NATO, these people will cheer like crazy: "Finally, out of it! Good riddance!"

Yet, if the US rid themselves of this cancer and forms a new paradigm of politics with an exclusion of charlatans and the corrupt, they may return their credibility. Most people know that what drives and leads the US today is a sickness, not a vision.

The sickness need to die and the world waits for the US immune system to deal with it. — Christoffer

Well, here's the problem... that sickness dying is the problem. What else will die with it?

Likely when the effects of those so lovable tariffs and trade wars hit Americans, they won't be so happy about Trump. Yes, you can have the democrats taking back the Congress and later the Presidency, or a new party or parties will emerge to do that perhaps. But the damage has been done. People aren't going be sure if populists came back later into power in the US. And Trump and the Trumpist will blame the foreigners for everything. They won't admit that the fault was Trump himself, that is for sure.

Take for example the next thought experiment. Assume that Russians finally would get tired about Putin and his kleptocracy and the whole regime would falter in a revolution. Russians would have had enough the imperial bullshit and opt to establish relations with the West. Fine, but you think people would again do what they did after the Cold War? That Russia is changed forever? The threat of Putinists retaking power would be looming there. You really have to make a true change totally in the wholee society in order to others to believe you have changed. Like Germany did after WW2. Well, that's not likely to happen in Russia. Just as likely as Trump, like Brexit for the British, isn't going to be so bad that all think it was terrible like... the Third Reich. The Brexiteers are quite lively and active even now. Hence likely the US will continue as an untrustworthy or faltering ally, and hence it's 80 year reign after WW2 has basically just ended. This won't go over.

Just look at above at the totally delusional rant that our favorite American that lives in Canada just wrote earlier in this thread . The scolding rant from JD Vance in Munich has a firm believer there. Someone who thinks that the culture war is the more pressing issue as the threat to Europe than actual war and to for us to have a defense against an aggressor, who surely won't stop once Trump has given Ukraine on a silver platter to him, just show how unreal this all is. Nope, that pinko-liberal gay Europe that attacks through DEI-programs the freedom of speech is the real threat, not the hybrid attacks and sabotage of Putin. Putin is their friend, because Trump likes him. And when Trump wants Greenland, Fox News has to badmouth Denmark of being like Venezuela, of course. Don't let Americans notice how insane their president is.

And then there's the argument of Europe resting on it's laurels while American did everything. Like our countries sent troops to Afghanistan for the Americans to decide for us to pull out and for Trump to surrender the country to the Taleban. And that Sweden and Finland haven't been under the NATO umbrella for all the time, with Sweden even making it's own nuclear weapons and still having that welfare state, doesn't matter. Oh, the nasty Europeans are going get what they deserve when America pulls out. That's the way these Americans will look at their work done by generations crumbling, with glee with a bit of shadenfreude as it would be someone else's misfortune than theirs.

And the next outcome is that the brilliant Trump peace deal likely won't happen, so no Nobel peace prize for Donald. Because of Trump, of course. A Rubio or a Kellog could actually even now work out a real peace deal, but as Trump takes the arena with Putin, there's no hope. Trump will do what Putin wants, and that won't fly with the Ukrainians. And Trump will get a tantrum, and will see Ukraine and Europe as being at fault here. And in the end, they have to spread hatred of Europe, because Trump failed. Perhaps they'll call again French Fries Freedom Fries. Or similar.

With Trump it's a fight between reality and the unreal, the lies that Trump says. And that will simply mean nothing will come out of it. Or many bad things will come of this.

At first, the most-stupid trade war ever will shread the good relations. Just look at how US-Canadian relations are deteriorating.

It's extremely easy to make people hate foreigners. Just assume that our countries in the Nordics would behave like Russia, and all hell would brake loose. Sweden could say that Finland is a purely artificial construct and naturally should be part of Sweden. Sweden could declare itself as a protector of the Swedish speaking minority in Finland, whom it would consider native Swedes and actually citizens of Sweden. Or Denmark could ask for Skåne back. Or Sweden and Denmark should compete which can get Norway, because the country has belonged to both of them. Hey, they have oil, so that would take care of financial problems, right? Watch what would be the reaction of the people and how they would start to look at their neighbors. Yet this would be and is totally OK for the Trump supporter, if the Swedish (or Danish) government would be on the Trump train and spreading the alt-right gospel. They deserve Norway or Finland, or Skåne or whatever.

But nope, we are the gay liberal Europe that keeps it's borders open. And seem to which have good relations with each other. We do have good relations. Because somehow we know that is better than hating your neighbors and instilling hatred between the people.

Never in history has a Great Power destroyed it's own structure of power as Trump has done now. You lose credibility only once.

The incoming chancellor of Germany says it well, adding to the comment that US interference in the elections was worse than Putin's interference:

"And what we also see with the greatest concern, of course, is the attempt (by Trump) to make a deal with Russia on Ukraine over the heads of the Europeans, over the heads of Ukraine," Merz told a press conference.

"It will come as no surprise to you when I say that this is unacceptable both for Ukraine and for Europe," Merz said, adding it would be difficult if those who put "America First" actually made their motto "America Alone".

Trump is doing such great job in alienating the former allies of the US, than even Putin has to intervene in his moment of triumph to get his plans through, as Trump in his stupidity would wreck it from the start.

(CNBC) Europe’s participation in Ukraine peace talks will be needed eventually but Moscow first wants to build trust with Washington, President Vladimir Putin said on Monday, while suggesting that a deal to end the conflict may still be far off.

I guess some kind of insanity has taken over Americans, as the Trump supporters simply cannot see how detrimental all this is to the position of the US in the global stage. It boils down to this ludicrous idea that somehow the US doesn't need the World or it's prosperity has nothing to do with the World outside it's own borders.

Well, it's just like the image of a Tesla car is now quite politically tarnished. I'd never even think of buying a Tesla now. Now if cuts the funding of James Webb and NASA in general, but then puts money into SpaceX Mars mission, at least I'm not so enthusiastic anymore of a Mars mission. It's not such an unifying moment, but simply more like a billionaires playground. (Which manned spaceflight largely has become)

Here's a question...

With how power-hungry and attention-seeking senators and politicians are, why isn't there republican politicians who take advantage of the current situation and oppose Trump? — Christoffer

Trump is still popular, and they fear the Trump croud. And Elon Musk.

After Americans have felt what those sweet tariffs in a trade war mean for their expenses, they will still support Trump. And the diehards will support even after the economy goes into recession.

Only then will they go after him. Now the start is that they correct the evident lies, like Ukraine didn't start the war.

* * *

The likely new Chancellor and election winner Merz didn't hold back on his critique of Trump & the Gang.

Friedrich Merz did not even wait for the final results in Germany's election before delivering what could well be a defining verdict on U.S. President Donald Trump, consigning Europe's 80-year alliance with the United States to the past.

The Trump administration does not care about Europe and is aligning with Russia, said Merz, who is on course to become Germany's new leader. The continent, he warned, must urgently strengthen its defenses and potentially even find a replacement for NATO — within months.

Merz's comments mark a historic watershed: They reveal how deeply Trump has shaken the political foundations of Europe, which has depended on American security guarantees since 1945.

Trump did congratulate the victors of the German elections, the first diplomatically reasonable thing to do, if he doesn't want to anger the conservatives even more. Likely outcome I assume is a coalition of the CDU/CSU with the social democrats.

If Trump thinks the CDU will get in bed with the AfD, think again...

But where the US is now is somewhere where we haven't seen it:

(Politico) A U.S. effort to sink a draft U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine failed Monday after European countries and Kyiv marshaled support for strong language against Moscow.

The United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution with 93 countries voting in favor. The U.S. and Russia both voted against it.

Alongside North Korea among others...

Says the man who saying that Russia isn't committing crimes against humanity, when actually taking children away is viewed as one way to preform genocide, actually. Or then you make a real difference between war crimes and "crimes against humanity".

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

That is a sure sign of a Putin-apologist right there.

One would think that this would be something that Elon would be positive about, but no.

Aahh... this has usually been the most positive, most optimistic and nice to read threads in PF.

Tells where the World is going.

Person who cannot refute the argument goes to ad hominem attacks.

Taking into account timelines, the history of Russia is quite bloody. But we are talking about the current here.

Not to mention there are all sorts of other problems here. Height is correlated with basketball success; almost all NBA players a huge outliers. Height is quite heritable. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Estonia are the tallest countries on Earth. Yet, you'd hardly select these populations as the ideal places to recruit a superstar basketball team if you knew anything about basketball, nor would you want some random 6'11 Dane on your team over 5'9 Isaiah Thomas. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not only are there actually more African-Americans than there are people in Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia, but one should also notice how much more popular basketball is in the US as in these countries. The popularity of a sport among the youth is extremely important.

But this naturally is a side issue, you can obviously note the difference in track and field and athletics. China is a country that really puts large effort in winning medals in the Olympics and got the second most medals after the US, but they aren't at all dominating in athletics (running, jumping and so on). In fact, in all Athletics competitions last time in the Paris Olympics, China got just one gold medal, in women's 20km race walk. And I think two other medals and that's it, from over 40 different competitions.

The denial of racial differences is one thing, but then the racist extrapolation from this is the real problem and it's effects on social cohesion. And what makes the whole discussion even worse is that we hear dog whistles everywhere. Discussions quickly transform into lithurgies. And people shun away from any discussion, as they fear to be marked.

What I think will be very damaging is when Trump is now firing from the US military black and female generals even without giving any reason (other than Hegseth saying they are fighting DEI). Well, the US armed forces has actually been a success story in combating real structural racism in the US, and hope it's not to backtrack here with the quite nonsensical and ludicrous "anti-DEI" policies.

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.

Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum. — Tzeentch

Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there!

The attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, hospitals and taking away of Ukrainian children just show what kind of enemy Putin's Russia is. Russian army had showed already in Chechnya how it fights wars.

I remember what a Finn that had fought in Ukraine told about a prisoner exchange they had. The Ukrainians delivered Russian prisoners of war, the Russian gave them Ukrainian children.

So that's the enemy you are so much understanding and putting on a different category. It really starts with things like Ukraine as a country "is an artificial construct". It is quite similar as the condescending attitude towards "There is no Palestine or Palestinians".

Perhaps it would be correct to think what the worst outcome can be here.

Well, it might be that:

a) European NATO countries insist to themselves that there is no problem with the Trump administration, that just as long as nobody asks Trump about it, we can just say that nothing has changed and the alliance is working. And Republicans will (behind the back of Trump, of course) insist that there's nothing to worry, the US is has their backs and this is just a negotiating tactic of Trump. Naturally they won't make this publicly.

b) That European NATO countries push Ukraine accept the punitive extraction attempt from Trump. Because of a).

c) Obviously Putin knows that he has Trump by the balls and can make him squeal as he wants him to do just by dangling in front of him some billion dollar deal that personally benefits the Trump family. Trump, who has never been interested in Europe or Ukraine, likely will give in for further demands as he sees the mirage of Russia billions in his eyes.

d) The likely one is what Putin has wanted for a long time, a demand which he actually put immediately on Trump when he was a candidate: have US troops leave the Baltics. And this can be done secretly, just like with Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, where the US just says it is pivoting to Asia. US forces simply won't participate in exercises in the Baltics... for cost cutting reasons. This is basically going back to the time when NATO didn't have any warplans to defend the Baltics, because having them would have upset Russia. And this was the truth before the invasion of Crimea 2014.

e) Once this is done, well, the Putin can freely go after the Baltic states with the much used playbook of creating "internal conflicts" and in order to protect the Russian minorities, "Russian volunteers" or "Russian peacekeepers" are sent in. And why not, because the US won't do anything and European members haven't prepared or don't want to intervene because of a).

The Finlandization of NATO is totally possible, which just show what an existential threat Russia is for Europe.

It is. The guy isn't a dictator, unlike one wanna be we have here.

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself. — Tzeentch

Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark?

The only difference is that Palestine and the Palestinians aren't a sovereign state that is attacked by another sovereign state, as in the case of Ukraine. That simply makes a huge deal, because once sovereign states can be done away with, that changes quite a lot in the World.

If you understand so well the reasonable objective of Putin's Russia, then you can well understand "the reasonable objectives" of Netanyahu's administration.

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey. — Tzeentch

It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics. — Punshhh

Yes, I agree with you.

What now is likely will happen is that Ukraine simply won't accept the Trump's pro-Russian plan, and Trump will have a temper tantrum on Ukraine ...and Europe. And Europe really has now to aid Ukraine. Let's hope they finally start with the billions of Putin's seized money. Then forget the spending limits and simply use debt to spend more on defense.

Here's what the Americans like JD Vance don't understand. Questions like wokeness or what is considered hate-speech, all this cultural war debate, are issues to be debated inside every democracy and their Parliaments and in their political arena. Threats to the existence of Sovereing states are totally different. And talking about taking the territory of another Sovereign nation state is an opening of Pandora's box. In Europe, we take it deadly serious. And the emphasis is on deadly. It's not about our economical benefits or political or moral character, it is the threat of war and our existence. Political debate or economic benefits or trade issues aren't so important. They don't mean anything compared to our security, which isn't just a few terrorists succeeding in their actions.

Trump seems to be incapable of understanding just how much damage he has done.

Stupid or not, the risk of a spiralling political polarization inside democracies can end up in the political protracted paralysis of necessary reforms to effectively addressing growing internal or external challenges. — neomac

Indeed it can. Polarization makes it difficult even to approach the other side in order to make any agreements. As one observer noted from the Parliament of the Weimar republic when he saw that the coffee tables in the cafeteria were marked by parties, you cannot have a democracy. If members of opposing parties cannot have a coffee together, democracy won't work!

In other words, democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking (all traits typical of Western democratic institutions and pedagogy) put together can be source of polarization that a foreign attacker can exploit against democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking. — neomac

Of course bad actors will abuse things like freedom of speach and so on. But the authoritarian looks at democracies being weak with all the woke nonsense. Yet in fact it's the authoritarians who are in the fundamentally weak, because they actually fear their people.

1. Appeal to morality doesn’t fixes per se clashes in moral sensitivity over lots of political issues: wealth redistribution, immigration, abortion, gender relations, religion, environment, etc. — neomac

Yes, but just look at those questions. They basically have a question of morality inside them, even if many aren't just a moral problem. You cannot "appeal" to morality. You have to make your case for your solution to the moral problem.

2. Leading by moral example is effective depending on moral sensitivity. Besides it doesn’t necessarily bring about the morally desirable collective behaviour in people by itself (namely without law enforcement), because people can be morally fallible no matter what is morally desirable. BTW one way people show moral fallibility is their disposition to detect hypocrisy in others more than in themselves, and often for the wrong reasons (since they assume their moral sensitivity to be the universal moral compass). — neomac

Yet leading by example goes only so far. If others won't pick up your example, refute that your wellbeing and prosperity happen because of "your example", they won't go along.

3. Political activism to moralize homeland politics is exploitable by rival foreign powers. And anti-Western authoritarian regimes have an asymmetric advantage to sow division over Western democracies. — neomac

And that usually can hit back at you very hard, if you aren't sensitive enough. Giving the "You People" talk to a crowd on how they should do a you do can sound arrogant and contemptuous. Anti-Western authoritarian government will do their propaganda, but if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions.

But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem won’t replicate). — neomac

You simply have a defective product. It's your loss.

as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. — neomac

Look, what I'm saying that if you want a functioning democracy, a prosperous country, then a lot of things have to be right. And if go to the DRC, we cannot think to change things to be like Switzerland. But what we can do is that they could be at least like in Botswana? Probably yes. That would be a huge improvement. First of all, you cannot think that a country is a democracy without all the necessary institutions and by just having elections.

Why can’t these problems be fixed in a morally satisfying way as in Finland? That’s what needs to be understood better. — neomac

Because you have to start with the reality that you have. Like for example the US. What it desperately needs is for it's citizens to think that the government works for them, and not the oligarchs. The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. What is happening now that some are pinning their hopes on an idiot reforming things and others are seeing how blatantly even without any fig leaf of the republic working as it's supposed to do.

The blatant error is thinking that somehow it's billionaires, that already enjoy the current system, would somehow reform the system. But Americans believe that these people are some kind of supermen. Poor people are stupid, billionaires have to be really smart, because they are billionaires, right? The public reaction to the shooting of a CEO is telling. What the country would have needed is for example that during the Financial Crisis, the Wall Street banks would have been treated like how the government treated the Savings & Loans bankers. That would have given credibility to the system.