Won't fly — jorndoe

It's essentially giving Russia a bunch of pre-emptive concessions in return for a status quo ceasefire.

Since there's no operable European coalition to actually provide security (that we know of), such a "guarantee" would be pretty useless. The members of such a coalition would have to be willing to get into a shooting war with Russia without US backing. If such a coalition was feasible, the war wouldn't be in the state it's in in the first place.

Still the question is how Ukraine plays this to avoid another cut off of US support (if it can). The deal is also odious to Russia in that it would entail a small retreat and run counter to the propaganda campaign. So if Putin is put on the spot I think he'd have trouble accepting it publicly. Yet Zelensky doesn't seem the type for such moves as he's already made clear de jure cession of Crimea is out of the question (as if would be unconstitutional).

So the Trump / Putin call seems to have gone better than I would have expected.

A pause on strikes on energy infrastructure will probably save civilian lives, which is a good thing. It's unclear to me who gets the most advantage out of it currently in military terms, but even if we take it as limiting Ukrainian options it's far from the worst concession that could be asked of them.

I was wondering what issue they'd use to openly defy a court order. I guess the administration feels like "violent foreign gang members" and "wartime emergency powers" is a combination they can sell to their supporters.

If I turn to ReArm Europe there might be an interesting leverage here. If ReArm Europe is successful, I think Putin got exactly the opposite from what he wanted. Sure, a bit of land but suddenly a very powerful anti-Putin war machine next door. Avoiding that coalition materialising is probably worth quite something to him, which might just be the pressure he needs to go along with peace — Benkei

I think the danger of the current situation for Ukraine is that there's not much either the EU or the US is able and willing to do to pressure Russia in the short term.

There are a lot of things the US can do to pressure Ukraine in the short term.

This imbalance would be hazardous at the best of times, since there'd always be the temptation to pressure Ukraine into more concessions. With Trump it's much worse because it's obvious he wants a deal fast and he does not see any way to pressure Russia into it. He said as much, and it was also pretty clear from his reaction to Putin's polite rejection of an unconditional ceasefire.

Unfortunately, most European countries did not use the past three years of war the way they should have. It should have been possible to build the military industrial capacity, particularly in the are of munitions and drones, to create serious deterrence potential. European militaries do have deeper and harder to solve issues around manpower and certain capabilities, but pure production capacity is not a hard problem to solve.

So Europe too lacks the kind of tools it would need to make a difference. Which once again means the only thing that can be used is the threat of several more years of war until Russia is exhausted. So far Putin seems willing to take that chance.

Of course, anybody ever having negotiated with Russians knows the caveats are an effective no to any just peace. There will be no peace unless the Russians get shit for free: Ukraine joining NATO or EU being off the table, annexing land, whatever. It's more important than ever there's a single front and it's impossible due to the orange monkey but also shit holes like Hungary and the Netherlands. — Benkei

I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes.

But even if they agreed to the 30 days outright, that would still leave open the question of where to go from there, and as far as I can see no-one has much of an idea. This is a risk for both sides but I figure that Putin thinks that he can play the West like he did after the Crimean and Donbas invasions.

Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US.

Typical good guy bad guy stuff. That’s seemingly the limit of political imagination. Putin is an evil guy by bent on conquering Europe and re-establishing the Soviet Union. “Same old bullshit.” — Mikie

So why were they wrong and you're right? Putin's not an evil guy, but Bush of Cheney or whoever we want to select was?

Or is neither evil and it's all relative?

It's just really confusing to me why you feel that Russia's (third) invasion of Ukraine is the case that's in dire need of nuance.

Just imagine it's the US saying these things about a war they started, say in Iran, and see how it sounds in your head.

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement. — Tzeentch

I'm kinda amazed that you're managing to spin Russia asking for concessions before they agree to a ceasefire as evidence of their good intentions.

By that logic, Ukraine refusing a ceasefire deal without substantial security guarantees was also them ensuring a lasting peace right?

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.

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.

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.

It's just bullying is all it is. He has the idea that playing nice concedes too much. That's how all ruthless people rule. I just think it will be more effective than you do. — Hanover

Oddly though, there's been no bullying of Russia at all. Russia seems to stand apart, with no demands made of them at all.

Russia had an opportunity to become a respected partner and actor on the world stage when Relations between the West and Russia were good following the fall of USSR. But it was all squandered and thrown away by a tinpot dictator. All it required was a bit of humility in accepting that the smaller now independent states that used to be in the USSR had a right to autonomy. — Punshhh

I wouldn't paint the picture all that rosy. The shock therapy approach had appalling consequences for the countries of the former USSR, notably in Russia. The treatment of the citizens of these countries was at times quite callous, and the West did abuse its post-1990s hegemony to weaken the principles of non-intervention.

Mistakes were definitely made. Of course, it does not follow that there is a direct line between those mistakes and the Putin regime. Other countries with similar problems made different choices.

And tariffs are off again, partially, until April, maybe.

This seems to be a good way to drive away any kind of investment since no long-term planning is possible.

Then why don't the US citizens who don't want this... do something about it? — Christoffer

Diffusion of responsibility. Everyone looks around at everyone else to see what they're doing, resulting in a gridlock where no-one does anything. I think author R.B. Cialdini describes the well-researched phenomenon as a case of communal stupidity, where our mechanism to use the knowledge and experience of others to make decisions locks up.

And just historically, it seems like a regime needs around 30% dedicated support to be able to grasp totalitarian powers. Around half the population will be too insecure or too shocked to act effectively at any given time, meaning that if you can mobilise a majority of the other 50%, you can seize power.

And which big tech uniting behind Trump and manipulating social media, it could actually require less support because social media would be an important tool to organise a resistance movement and spread information about it.

I'm honestly somewhat pessimistic about this. I have considered social media kind of a "suicide pact" technology for a while. Humans are not rational actors the vast majority of the time. Most of the stuff we do on any given day is directed by the "autopilot", a bunch of heuristics and response algorithms we acquired during our evolution. Many of these affect even conscious decisions without the people making the decision being aware of it.

By now, the workings of many of these mechanisms are decently well researched and are implemented in our online spaces to various degrees. This means that our "terminally online" populations are uniquely vulnerable to a concerted attack that either confuses them or convinces them to be complacent towards certain risks.

But where does this idea come from that Trump wants to 'ally Russia'?

That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. — Tzeentch

Sure, it's very dumb, but if he's not trying that, then what the fuck is he doing?

t is uniquely suited for that because it's an offshoot of Christian morality that holds that morality is objective and universal — ChatteringMonkey

Where do you get the idea that a uniquely defining factor of Christian morality is that it's objective and universal?

I'd say the opposite is true. Christian morality, especially the protestant version, is uniquely personal. All morality has some claim to objective and universal application. Indeed that's a common definition for morality. What's unusual about Christianity specifically is that it has no fully fixed moral code and that the scripture offers a lot of room to insert personal beliefs. Notably Christianity has no religious law, unlike it's sister religions.

Thrasymachus was allways right folks, justice is the interest of the stronger... the liberal democratic world order was there to serve our interests. — ChatteringMonkey

Obviously it's true that the "liberal democratic" world order was to a significant extent shaped to serve US and also European interests, particularly economic ones. I don't think anyone supposed that past US administrations were somehow solely motivated by altruism.

It does not follow though that it did not also foster actual liberal values and actual democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If American nationalists wish to keep the US as the strongest superpower, which they most likely do, then Russia can be very much instrumental to contain China (and Iran to make Israel happy!). This likely includes the idea of keeping China and Europe separated. The idea of using Russia to counter China as the biggest competitor to the US supremacy is e.g. what Mearsheimer kept suggesting roughly since the beginning of this conflict.
On the other side it is unlikely that Russia is happy to turn into some dumb sidekick of China. Russia current economic, military and political weakness can be exploited by Trump to turn Russia into US’s sidekick (this move reminds me of Nixon's opening to Mao’s China against the Soviet Union). And to make this proposal of partnership credible to Russia, Trump needs to blame everything on Biden, Zelensky and European allies, make them pay for Russia’s aggression of Ukraine and make a good deal of concessions to Putin. — neomac

But wouldn't the US aligning with Russia create a situation where a disgruntled Europe is now more open to Chinese influence?

If you could choose between retaining an alliance with Europe and gaining one with Russia, why would you choose Russia?

Tech-bros are getting EU laws/tax against American Big Tech down and prevent the formation of European big-tech competitors (keep an eye on AI and how AI will be integrated within military industry or how American crypto currencies will be injected into the European system). Bannon with his fascist-leaning mindset and propaganda aspires to be the guru of European far right movements (see Salvini in Italy who is waving between becoming a Putin's bitch and Trump's bitch, or both), so he helps steal the European far-right movements/propaganda from Russia. All three are helping each other. — neomac

Sure, Putin was a convenient figurehead to use for the right wing populists and their nativist, anti-EU and frequently Anti-American agenda.

But that was and is mostly political manoeuvring to appeal to voter blocks. It's hard for me to see why a Europe that was actually ruled by nationalist governments would be friendly to Russia. There is no constructive overlap of interests. The overlap is purely destructive: against the EU and NATO.

Similarly with US politics, I can see right wing populists using Putin as a sign of their opposition to the status quo. But now that they're actually in power, there seems little reason to care for Russia one way or another.

There must be something I'm not seeing.

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). — ssu

Actually it now occurs to me that for those that want to radically rebuild the US into some cyberpunk dystopia, the entire Ukraine conflict might be just another smokescreen to keep both the public and Trump distracted while they go about their work.

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. — ssu

What's confusing me is that I don't see what either the tech-bros like Musk or the nativists like Bannon (I'm not really sure where Vance falls on this) are getting out of this.

I can understand Trump liking his ego stroked by Putin. But Russia seems an unlikely ally for any of the factions that make up Trumps power base (or pull his strings). It seems to me that Russia has little to offer to any political faction in the US. The US doesn't need the raw materials, the Russian consumer base is relatively small and Putin doesn't even have much diplomatic weight to throw around.

Yes, I agree, I suspect there is Kompromat on Trump which is being leveraged to pull his strings. Indeed there did seem to be a tell (when responding to Zelenskyy) in his ramblings about the way Putin had been attacked with a so called Biden scam. Referring to the Hunter Biden laptop, where he emphasised something disgusting happening in Hunter’s bedroom. I read this as there is something on a laptop disgusting in a bedroom, but Trump was on the tape rather than Hunter. — Punshhh

It could also just be basic psychology. Trump sees Putin as being like him (an image that Putin no doubt did everything to reinforce) and thus he projects his own frustrations on Putin.

There seem to be many plausible ways to explain Trump's behaviour on this issue. What puzzles me much more, as I have written above, is why everyone else in the Trump administration is behaving the way they are.

Yes the pragmatic solution is a ceasefire with the line drawn where the current frontline lies. With a new iron curtain erected. But we are a long way from that on both sides. — Punshhh

A new iron curtain would imply Ukraine is in NATO. I think the Ukrainians would be ready to accept that deal. But neither Russia or the current US administration would accept it.

Europe is still one of their biggest markets, a stable continent could integrate further via the belt and road they are already building. — ChatteringMonkey

In terms of market, a disunited and splintered EU offers much the same market and the nations can be played against each other to avoid moves that threaten China's interests.

China doesn't want a world war, it wants to sell its products. — ChatteringMonkey

Obviously it doesn't want a world war. But China cares about a lot more then just selling products, otherwise they would not invest so much into expanding their power projection capabilities.

If Europe builds up a unified European security and foreign policy to replace Nato it could become one of the powers in a multi-polar world. It's not going to be easy, but with an economy 10 or more times the size of Russia it shouldn't be impossible either. — ChatteringMonkey

My problem with that is that multi-polar worlds aren't stable and degenerate into imperial spheres of influence, usually in the course of wars.

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! — ssu

I'm reading the situation a bit differently. Trump doesn't care about Ukraine one way or another, he just cares about his ego. He appears to genuinely believe Putin respects him as some kind of great leader, hence he's willing to take Putin's side unless it involves him looking weak.

A lot comes down to what Trump is told by the people with a plan behind the scenes. JD Vance seems to seek to push a wedge between Europe and the US in general, not sure to wear ultimate end. Musk seems more interested in dismantling government structures from the inside.

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.

There never was a deal. Putin had already pulled back from negotiations once the rare earth narrative was adopted. It’s all just Trump chaos. — Punshhh

But the Trump chaos is being steered in a more deliberate direction this time. Both internally and externally the goal seems to be to use Trump to engineer a breakdown of existing structures.

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. — ssu

I am :100: behind Zelenskyy. — Wayfarer

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.

Build up European security and foreign policy apart from the US, and try to normalise relations with Russia and China. This is the only way forward long term. We will need them (and they need us) to keep the continent stable, we need them economically, and we might need them to stop the US from derailing the world into a downward spiral. — ChatteringMonkey

Just how do you imagine that working? What interest do China or Russia have in a stable and independent Europe? None. There's only two ways to have a stable and independent geopolitical position: 1) Be a great / hegemonic power, 2) play off hegemonic powers against each other.

Everyone else ends up in one sphere of influence or another. At least that is what history teaches us.

Obviously Europe can cooperate with powers like China or Russia, but to expect a benevolent cooperation seems a bit naive. There is no equivalent alternative to US hegemony. If the US retreats, as appears incresingly likely, the result is instability which can easily result in wars.

Well, that meeting went rather badly.

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

It seems very likely now that the US is going to pull out. That was probably going to happen anyways, given that the Trump administration has shown zero interest in actually negotiating meaningfully.

A similar MEUGA might push European unification into overdrive to rebuild a militarily self-sufficient world power. As Trump already suggested military expenditure needs to dramatically increase. But instead of 5% the military expenditure should be nearer to 25% or even more if Europe is to survive. — magritte

I'd say that the opposite is likely. What would be in the interest of the "tech-bro oligarchy", as we could call it, would be a Europe of divided and weak nation states that would be forced to accept the dominant position of the oligarchic service providers that control online media and AI.

It would make sense for the DOGE to use AI to sift through administrative records of government contracts for suspected waste and corruption. Younger people with marketable skills and near retirees took the bonus and bailed out. They're eliminating social services as 'Marxist' and 'woke' agencies as promised to Trump supporters. But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? I imagine they're keeping all Trump supporters. — magritte

This is assuming that what Musk is doing is still part of the "normal" political game and the goal of his actions is ultimately to deliver on political promises and shore up the power of the administration.

However, it is also possible that the goal is not part of the normal political landscape and instead what we're seeing is a deliberate attempt to make the federal government ultimately unable to fulfill many of its roles and thus provide an argument for replacing most of it with private contractors.

One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can. — BC

Or they'll have to buy services from "the market" which will really mean Musk, Bezos etc.

Wasn't there already a tweet by Musk offering services from X to take over from a government agency he weakened?

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

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

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

As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will. — Manuel

And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome.

I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this. — Manuel

That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this?

Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.

No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it. — Manuel

And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here?

But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained. — Manuel

I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve?

You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred. — Manuel

I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time.

They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world. — Manuel

What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?

On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand.

Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.

I mean full and total devastation of Kiev. — Manuel

It's doubtful whether Russia can afford to do that. But I think more importantly Kiev is part of the russian national heritage at least the way Putin and the (ultra-) nationalists see it.

I don't think Russia is keeping significant operational capacities in reserve. If they had, they had every incentive to use those. Instead Russia got troops from north Korea to aid it's Kursk offensive.

Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world. — Manuel

Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen. — Manuel

And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up. — Manuel

I don't think "can Ukraine beat Russia" is really a good question to ask. The situation right now is that neither country is strong enough to enforce their demands. They're in a fairly even attritional struggle (with the current level of international aid to Ukraine) that favours Russia but does not offer it a clear route to victory.

Given that, what does it take to "beat Russia"? Take Moscow? Push all russian forces over the 2021 borders? The 2014 borders? Stop their momentum? Keep Kiev?

All of these are, imo, plausible variants of "beating Russia". But at the end of the day the operative question should be: What kind of post-war order do we envision?

A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.

On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome.

That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia. — Manuel

But this is ultimately a matter of degrees. Ukraine has been relying on US intelligence and targeting data since the start of the war. It's an open secret that special forces of NATO countries are active in Ukraine.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen? — Manuel

It depends right? It's a strategic decision of what to do. First of all I have to note that to make the analogy work, the US would already have to be fighting against Cuba on Cuba.

Second Houthi rebels have been firing Iranian weapons at US warships for some months now. Has this caused total war between Iran and the US? Hell Iran just straight up fired missiles into Israel and the result hasn't been a nuclear strike.

They probably will hit Ukraine very hard — Manuel

Are you implying that's not what they have been doing?

But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. — Manuel

Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it.

I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options. — Manuel

What? I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.

This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.

Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal?

I wager that the Americans view 'limited nuclear war' as an excellent means of taking out two potential geopolitical rivals who stand to benefit from a US-China war: Russia and Europe. — Tzeentch

There's no such thing as a "limited nuclear war" between two nuclear powers.

What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated. — Tzeentch

Which would not be a limited nuclear war but a total one. I fail to see how this is in Russia's interest.

This is horrifying. Worse that many American and some Europeans think this is a good idea - not all of them to be clear.

I don't understand how people think this is good. We are standing at the precipice of annihilation. — Manuel

We stood at the precipice of annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis or on the few occasions when a detection error almost set off a nuclear exchange. The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations.

Ukrainians have been killing russian soldiers and destroying russian installations using western weapons for years now. Russia could have used a nuclear weapon at any point, yet to what end?

At this point in time, Ukraine is lost and will soon be pressured to the negotiating table by Trump. Even though I understand that it will be a painful process for Ukraine, I consider it to be in Ukraine's best interest. The alternative is an even longer war with an even bleaker outlook, from which Ukraine stands to gain absolutely nothing. — Tzeentch

So is Ukraine "lost" or can they negotiate? Those two statements seem to contradict each other.

And now Ukraine can send missiles into Russia. — Manuel

They have been doing that for a while, albeit with more limited range.

Does this site have anyone on it who can actually read what someone says rather than attack strawmen of their own invention? — Clearbury

For me to read your argument, you would have to actually write it down first. All I have are your conclusions that this or that is unjust. But what is the reasoning that got you there?

That is unjust. It'd be unjust if I tried to do that in respect of others, and so it is unjust of teh government to try and do it. — Clearbury

What makes it unjust, specifically? What's the moral philosophy and what's the argument?

It seems like a perfectly fine policy to limit the ability of everyone to do violence to each other and hand it to some professional and accountable institution.

After all according to your own argument, violence ought to be something tightly restricted.

The other thing governments do - and that seems partly definitive of them - is extract payment for its services with menaces, regardless of whether anyone to whom the services are being provided has contracted them.

On its injustice: I take it that we can all agree that if the local mafia turn up at a business and say to the business owner "we are going to provide you with protection and you must pay us 30% of your profits or we'll smash your business up and imprison you" then this would be unjust behaviour on the mafia's part. — Clearbury

Us agreeing is all fine, but that doesn't replace an argument. The thing about extortion rackets is that they don't provide protection. That is what they say, but that's not actually what is happening. So this situation is actually not at all analogous to taxes or other dues.

if there is no relevant difference between a government and a mafia except in terms of how effective they have been at monopolizing the use of violence, — Clearbury

But of course, this is not the case for many governments.

You're taxed to pay for the police whether you wish to be or not. And if you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will eventually imprison you. — Clearbury

And being taxed is not the same as paying for the individual operation. As I pointed out, your relation with the government is not (only) contractual. Same as your relations with your friends and family.

Not all obligations need to be contractual.

Trump is a demagogue — Wayfarer

Sure. He just doesn't seem like a particularly good one. His speeches may stoke hatred and fears, but they're also meandering and sloppy.

Putin has the military machismo and an air of quiet danger. Hitler had his ideological zeal and his harangues.

Trump just seems to bring so little to the table. Maybe that's his strength, because it makes him seem genuine? Plenty of strongmen seem to have started out as relative nobodys. Putin was considered mostly a blank page when he was made Yeltsin's heir apparent.

Or am I falling for part of the con by buying the appearance of an unfocused, bumbling fool?

Be afraid? This was a photoshopped joke post on Twitter/X captioned, "Let that sink in." Musk was a Democrat just three years ago. Now he has been demonized for political reasons, and many have been taken in by the propaganda. — Leontiskos

Demonised? Hardly. He's deliberately turned himself into a Trump style caricature, picking fights with foreign governments on Twitter, spreading bizarre claims and just generally sounding off on everything and nothing.

He's not being demonised, he's playing the "make the libs mad" strategy at maximum intensity.

Well that's what big pharma says. But they just want to sell you their expensive chemotherapy...

On a more serious note, I do think it's interesting that Trump, a person who so far as I can tell has zero principles and very limited interests beyond his immediate gratification, has ended up at the front of such a change.

During his first term I had assumed the party was going to grudgingly tow the line to get what they could out of his presidency, then dump him when he lost reelection. After J6 I was certain he was finished for about a week, until the dominoes started falling.

Yet here we are, with a GOP that in large parts remade itself in Trumps image. And it somehow worked, too. Is there some deep wisdom in this? It feels like there should be, but that's probably just looking for images in the clouds.

There is little moral underpinnings to your definition of crime save that the act upsets some people. It lacks any clear principle and would treat any vice as a crime if enough people were against it. — NOS4A2

Yes. Hence why people commonly differentiate between morality and legality, or in this case criminality.

Does your government not deal in drugs? — NOS4A2

No?

What is a crime to you, then? — NOS4A2

A crime is committing an act defined as criminal by law.

If we'd like a less positivist definition, we could say a crime is a violation of social norms that's considered so severe that the community reacts with an explicit punishment.

Neither of those really works when applied to state power. As I have alluded to above this kind of anarcho-capitalist discourse suffers from ignoring social relations between people. It considers people self sufficient islands that are only engaged in contractual relationships.

But humans are always born into social relationships that come with obligations. These obligations don't need to be justified by reference to some wholly fabricated state of absolute independence. They need to be justified by reference to other rules for social interaction and organisation.