US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Per]

Here's an opinion piece from The European Correspondent that says pretty much the same things I just did:
https://www.europeancorrespondent.com/today

And a longer more in depth article from The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/international ... -on-europe

[Chef Boi RD]

Well said, Per.

[UWSaint]

Trump is all transactional. "What's in it for me?"
He doesn't understand or believe in the concept of the common good. He sees everything as winners and losers.
Nor does he understand the idea of building trust and forming alliances.

I don't think this is exactly right. I think his orientation in foreign policy is "What's in it for the United States of America." Trust and forming alliances is one strategy to better the United States, but it is not the only strategy and a strategy should never be mistaken for the principle.

He is just a bully in a schoolyard, trying to figure out which kid's lunch money he can get hold of.

There's a bit of this, for sure, but there's a hell of a lot of "pull your weight" in Trump's foreign policy. Sometimes a bully; often just not a sucker.

The USA has spent 70 years forming global institutions and forming alliances to help secure peace and order. Democrats and republicans alike.
Sure, they (and the Soviet Union/Russia) have often bent or disregarded the rules they've helped set in place, but overall, the period after WW2 has been the most peaceful and prosperous in all of human history. And we have all benefitted from it.

I think it isn't the global institutions that have ensured relative peace (in Europe). It is more likely to be democratic institutions -- nation states where the people elect their governments who serve the people. Something few European states had firmly established by the time anti-democratic movements (international communism; fascism) became popular options. And something that seems to be fraying in Europe today. The rise of populism in Europe (and the United States) is an organic disillusionment of the people with their governments, who feel unserved by those governments, who perceive their governments as more concerned with the global institutions they created than the people they are supposed to serve.

He is starting trade wars with some of America's closest allies, and he is threatening Denmark - one of the founding nations of Nato and an extremely loyal ally, who even joined the USA in the illegal ivasion of Iraq that many major Nato nations (eg Canada, France, Germany, Belgium) declared unlawful and refused to participate in - that he is going to annex part of their territory one way or the other.

Imposing tariffs a trade war? Are all tariffs "trade wars?" We don't have a common market with the EU; the US isn't in the EU. And you know that there are tariffs on many US goods going to Europe, right? (E.g., 10% on cars, when the US tariff on cars was 2.5%). Anyone call that a trade war? And you know that the US has one of the lowest tariff rates in the world for what they import, right? You and I agree mostly on the mutual benefits of free trade, Per. There's a whole lot of wat je zegt ben jezelf, met je kop door de helft in the European response. Take a breath, figure out what's mutually beneficial, and let's move forward.

And he is now choosing to sit down with Putin to discuss the future of Ukraine, and Europe, with neither Ukraine, the EU or Nato at the table.

As Johnson did with Zelenskyy to keep the war going when it was almost settled a few months in?

The US can't make peace if Ukraine won't accept whatever the offer is. But the US certainly controls whether or not and to what extend it funds the war.

I do think that this administration is more interested in peace without justice than endless war without justice. The multilateral strategy hasn't got to that answer. So don't talk? Have you ever been part of a multilateral conflict where there's a bilateral negotiation? Happens all the time, and for several possible purposes. Mediate, broker, good cop/bad cop, find the person you can trust, get out before the ship goes down, etc.

Last, what do YOU want from this conflict, and are you willing to put the young men and women of your country in front of Russian tanks to achieve it? A critique of the American foreign policy here is absolutely appropriate, but if you don't offer what you'd do to end this war, it's a critique that's impossible to really evaluate. Is there an amount of lives (Ukranian/Russian), lives (NATO/mercenaries for the Russians), money, destruction, that's too much?

It is becoming increasingly clear to us Europeans that we can no longer rely on the USA as an ally, when they prefer to side with our enemy, when they threaten us both financially and actually physically. When they intervene in our elections, as Musk has attempted in both Britain and Germany, and openly mock as, as Vance did in Munich.

Was the US a good ally when it orchestrated the Maidan coup? Was that "election interference?" Did this increase European stability? Does Russia take the Crimea if that doesn't occur? Do you honestly think the West or Russia have viewed Ukraine's sovereignty as primary these past 20 years? Or have each simply been engaged in different tactics to control the leadership of the country?

Vance did not mock Europe. He just spoke plainly and directly, without subterfuge or niceties. The facts in his speech, near as I can tell, were accurate -- and Europeans and Americans alike should ask "is that what a free society looks like?" The normative perspective in the speech -- what are we fighting for -- is dead on (in my view) -- you have to ask this question and answer it honestly. And if the answer isn't to the United States' liking--if it doesn't support freedom of conscience, freedoms of speech, political freedom (i.e., no illegal political parties), democratically responsive institutions, not criminalizing political opposition, then whatever alliance remains will be one of ephemeral practicality as opposed to shared values. Fact is, the US just had an election over those issues, and Vance is now trying to export these once obvious political truths to our historic allies who are abandoning them.

When European leaders clutch their pearls over being spoken to directly and do NOT confront the substance, you know the target's been hit.

See, the United States is not about "rule-based" order -- but that doesn't mean it is against rules. Its that not all rules are normatively justified if they infringe on fundamental freedoms necessary for democracy -- and Vance articulated plainly what those were and why. Set aside immigration, do you disagree with those points? Then include immigration -- where was Vance wrong? (I don't ask that rhetorically -- the first I do, I agree with him 100% -- the second question I agree with Vance directionally but not necessarily as completely and I think the problems immigration have brought to Europe (and the US) are exacerbated by (1) volume and (2) lack of national identity and (3) lack of assimilation.

Did Swede Thunberg interfere in US elections? How about the Israeli-Hamas/Palestine conflict? You think that was a throwaway line (regarding Musk)? It wasn't about Thunberg -- it was about how fragile is European democracy if Musk taking a side "interferes" with it?

If the USA is no longer committed to Nato, we need to work on an independent solution to protect our continent.
Or perhaps cozy up to China.

Ukraine isn't a NATO country. The United States is. I think part of the reason this administration "gave up" Ukraine in NATO was because the United States (this administration) wouldn't vote to include them. As the US has a right to do.

China and Europe might share more values than the United States and Europe. Remains to be seen. Its Europe's choice.

But, yes, to protect your continent, there are limited options. Self-defense or ally with a superior power. That's always the price of nationhood. And the superior power exacts a price, because it pays an extraordinary price to maintain superior power. If you think China will be a better friend than the United States, choose China. And tell me why that will be better than, say, sticking with the US--YOUR 70+ year ally. All Vance was saying is be wary of the anti-democratic nature of modern internationalism with its dim view of the nation, the citizenry, and once-cherished liberties. [EDITED]: If Europe chooses that path over liberty and democracy -- as it seems to be hell bent on doing -- the US will ultimately view Europe as it does Russia and China -- foreign in values, corporatist, and with no moral superiority over the other autocrat powers. This (and immigration -- though immigration is a manifestation of corporatism, internationalism, and elitism) is why the populists are the largest growing European factions -- and the "establishment's" response is to call them "right wing extremists." If it weren't enough for these folks to feel they have no representation, now the move is to make their parties illegal, to dismiss them as being comprised of just fascists (ummm, a huge part of your continent were fascists -- do you expect them to be permanently disenfranchised?), and to continue to be tone deaf. What was a feeling will become de facto or de jure state policy (to NOT incorporate these people and their concerns into the polity), and then what do you think will happen?

And if we now send a signal that wars of aggression will be rewarded, there will be dozens of conflicts popping up over the next few years.
There is not a single country that hasn't gained or lost territory over the past few centuries. But since WW2 the reasoning that "this used to be ours and it rightfully should belong to us" has not been acceptable and the expansion of borders through war has been listed as a war crime.
If this rule no longer applies, it's a free for all! And conflicts that have been gone for a long time are bound to reignite.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I think Russia's war is completely unjust. I agree with you.

But peace isn't about a signal. Its about the lives of men and women, the destruction of a nation, all without a good probability of achieving a victory. That is the *practical* read of this war. And we agree, right, that we shouldn't turn Russia into glass and risk them retaliating in kind? And we agree, right, that western nations shouldn't be sending their boys and girls over their to take bullets? Well, if we agree with that, then we are already in the world where we will not "stop at nothing" to not "send a signal that wars of aggression will not be rewarded."

Again, I return to the fact that neither the west nor Russia was content to let Ukraine figure itself out and whether it would look west or east. While invading a country is worse than orchestrating a coup (to avoid Ukraine being Belarus), nothing about this war concerns "democratic values." It does concern European security -- but that's what NATO is for. That is the LINE, the Russians haven't crossed it, and I think its probably in Europe's interests to keep the United States in it. Everything in Trump's first term *strengthened* NATO because its military capacity vs. a growing Russian threat increased. Everything in the Obama and Biden terms weakened NATO because it both depleted that military capacity *and* poked the bear. Would you rather increase the chance of war while increasing the certainty of alliance or decrease the chance of war yet have an alliance that you have to fight to maintain? Tough question.

If we are the only ones still committed to a rules based world order, it will no longer keep us safe.
So we have to become more militarized in order to be able to fight off the inevitable attacks that will occur.

Do you prefer liberty or rules?

Militarization and self-determination or to live always subject to the shifting sands of a superpower?

Which is sad. That money could have been used on health care, education and infrastructure.
Now we need to use it to make sure we are not invaded and annexed by the imperialistic forces in the world.

THIS is how Americans have been feeling for a very long time when it comes to money spent in foreign entanglements and building a military that may very well survive if the ENTIRE world attacked the US. (Thanks to geography as well as the size and capabilities of the American military). We have been spending outsized potions of our budget to defend not only our shores, but those of our allies. And its come at a great expense. So, yeah, I think the US can choose to reallocate its resources if it wishes. The good news for the alliance and Europe is the odds of the United States withdrawing from NATO (instead of setting the limits of its engagements and size) is pretty low, even with Trump. And they are far lower if European governments stop living in fear of their citizens, as Vance articulated.

[Topper]

Trump and the Republicans did to Nikki Haley exactly what Hillary and the Democrats did to Tulsi.

[Strangelove]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eru ... tate-panic

Internet search trends in the Washington, DC, metro area have been nothing short of stunning in recent weeks, reflecting what appears to be growing panic within the federal bureaucracy as President Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) root out corruption in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and federal agencies.

Earlier this week, internet search trends for "Criminal Defense Lawyer" and "RICO Laws" went viral on X, fueling speculation that Washington's political elites were in panic mode. The searches coincided with DOGE's efforts to neuter USAID's funding of NGOs that propped up a shadow government, as well as begin cutting tens of thousands of workers from various federal agencies.

[5thhorseman]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eru ... tate-panic

Internet search trends in the Washington, DC, metro area have been nothing short of stunning in recent weeks, reflecting what appears to be growing panic within the federal bureaucracy as President Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) root out corruption in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and federal agencies.

Earlier this week, internet search trends for "Criminal Defense Lawyer" and "RICO Laws" went viral on X, fueling speculation that Washington's political elites were in panic mode. The searches coincided with DOGE's efforts to neuter USAID's funding of NGOs that propped up a shadow government, as well as begin cutting tens of thousands of workers from various federal agencies.

Zerohedge lol. Let us know when DOGE actually finds some corruption.

[Strangelove]

Zerohedge lol.

Can you dispute their findings in this article Horsey?

Let us know when DOGE actually finds some corruption.

Oh I will, and you know it's coming...

[Per]

Was the US a good ally when it orchestrated the Maidan coup? Was that "election interference?" Did this increase European stability? Does Russia take the Crimea if that doesn't occur? Do you honestly think the West or Russia have viewed Ukraine's sovereignty as primary these past 20 years? Or have each simply been engaged in different tactics to control the leadership of the country?

OK, there was a lot of interesting stuff you wrote, and I don't have time to address all at once.

I will just have to protest this bit though; you have apparently bought the Russian narrative hook, line and sinker.

There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. Read the article below, it is quite interesting and enlightening.

The idea that Yanukovych’s removal was illegitimate is easily refuted: After Yanukovych abandoned his office by fleeing from Ukraine to Russia, he was stripped of the presidency by a constitutional majority in parliament. Even Russia joined the rest of the world in recognizing the new Ukrainian government a few months later.

But the truth underlying the events of February 2014 is far more interesting: The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Moscow itself that triggered Yanukovych’s departure in order to launch a pre-arranged Plan B—the invasion of Crimea and an engineered “uprising” in eastern Ukraine—after Moscow’s Plan A—a new treaty with a pliant government in Kyiv that placed it under Russia’s de facto control—was about to fail. Indeed, the timeline shows that preparations for Plan B were well underway before Yanukovych’s removal from office. All this, in turn, demonstrates that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans for Ukraine were far more predatory all along than merely preventing the country’s drift toward NATO, as many of Russia’s Western apologists contend.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/04/uk ... anukovych/

[Chef Boi RD]

UW, regarding tariffs…is raising them good for the American consumer struggling to make ends meet? Or are they just better for the coffers of “Trump’s government”, that is to offset his promised tax cuts and downsizing government? Ie - firing low to middle income earners in the public sector?

[5thhorseman]

Zerohedge lol.

Can you dispute their findings in this article Horsey?

Let us know when DOGE actually finds some corruption.

Oh I will, and you know it's coming...

I don't read zerohedge Doc. I have in the past but find him too sensationalist and on the conspiratorial side.

If Musk finds corruption then good for him and for the US, and hopefully this will lead to better practices in our country as well.

However Musk has claimed $50B worth of corruption has been found so we should get details soon, right?

Keep us posted!

[Topper]

I believe DOGE has identified a lot of waste and likely some habitual mismanagement, this is the way we have always done it, but linking that to corruption is another step or two that hasn't been seen yet.

[Chef Boi RD]

Zerohedge lol.

Can you dispute their findings in this article Horsey?

Let us know when DOGE actually finds some corruption.

Oh I will, and you know it's coming...

I don't read zerohedge Doc. I have in the past but find him too sensationalist and on the conspiratorial side.

If Musk finds corruption then good for him and for the US, and hopefully this will lead to better practices in our country as well.

However Musk has claimed $50B worth of corruption has been found so we should get details soon, right?

Keep us posted!

In this day and age are you “really” surprised by the MAGA troops referencing sensational conspiracy theorists? lol…it’s their bread and butter.

[UWSaint]

OK, athere was a lot of interesting stuff you wrote, and I don't have time to address all at once.

I will just have to protest this bit though; you have apparently bought the Russian narrative hook, line and sinker.

There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. Read the article below, it is quite interesting and enlightening.

Debunked by Foreign Policy? Whose propaganda have you ll bought hook line and sinker, Per. State and CIA are the best at this, are they not?

This transcript was not made up: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp
Hmmm, caught in the act (and what Nuland proposed came to be).

And it’s an example of US State playing Masters of the Universe. ) The US tirelessly pushes for regime changes in this country or that. Sometimes it’s a smart alternative to war; sometimes that’s a false choice. But it’s not “democracy.”

[UWSaint]

UW, regarding tariffs…is raising them good for the American consumer struggling to make ends meet? Or are they just better for the coffers of “Trump’s government”, that is to offset his promised tax cuts and downsizing government? Ie - firing low to middle income earners in the public sector?

Generally, I think tariffs are not good for consumers.

But neither is any form of tax, regulation, or inflation that raises the costs of good or deteriorates buying power. But revenue must be raised for government, there are rules for safety, environment, etc that are either internalizing true costs or paternalistically governing citizens.

Tariffs, like taxes, are often used to modify incentives and change behaviors. Foreign policy is about that, and there’s also a knock on domestic economy effect — beneficial for some industries, detrimental to others, generally detrimental to the consumer. Possibly, but not necessarily, a drag on growth (you really have to analyze that within the constellation of policy change).

While I am generally not a tariff fan, I do think it’s a tool properly on the table for revenue generation or foreign policy influence. And while I think it’s usually not a great tool for domestic economic policy (protectionism doesn’t typically help long term), there is some sense in having economic policies that hedge against trade interruption. (Essential production and capabilities for production that would allow the US to better handle international trade disruption).

So generally bad, but I am not ideological about it and taking them totally off the table is also bad.

[Strangelove]

Zerohedge lol.

Can you dispute their findings in this article Horsey?

I don't read zerohedge Doc. I have in the past but find him too sensationalist and on the conspiratorial side.

Yeah, I don't read zerohedge either Horsey... for the same reasons.

But someone forwarded me this particular very interesting + amusing article.

Again: Can you dispute their findings in this article?

You've gone all ad hominem pal (attacking the source).

"I absolutely refuse to read anything from zerohedge" - Horsey

Thanks for your input on this matter /sarcasm.