The USA is not a party to the ICC where the charges are laid, and Trump has launched an assault on it via an Executive Order (it's part of a legal structure he does not control) - just as he has launched other assaults on international law.
I've argued before that Trump is the closest operator to Bismarck we have in the contemporary world, but if he can pull off a rapprochement with Russia and bring them out of an alliance with China, it will be one of the great feats of international diplomacy.
He's a burger-eating surrender monkey. It's easy to have a rapproachment when you're just a corrupt kleptocrat who surrenders to another one so you can both happily go about stealing again.
I've argued before that Trump is the closest operator to Bismarck we have in the contemporary world, but if he can pull off a rapprochement with Russia and bring them out of an alliance with China, it will be one of the great feats of international diplomacy.
Oh William, you are an intelligent poster but since January 20th you come across as the Trump-shill version of a Saturday morning Putin-bot. Get a grip.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
This is, first and most importantly, a disaster for Ukraine, but it's also catastrophically bad for European and US security. The US and some in Europe will tell themselves that this is about the US sensibly reprioritising on security. But Putin will see it as capitulation to him.
"Between the tariffs, the idiotic threats to Canadian and Danish sovereignty, the destruction of USAID, and the undermining of NATO, it's hard to see what the Trump administration would have done differently in their first 2 weeks if their aim were to destroy US power and global influence."
More accurately I would suggest it is not destroying US power it is mostly shifting it from the US state to US oligarchs alongside some destruction. Many tens of billions will be made with US foreign policy up for sale without scruples. In the end the broligarchs will rule as emperors.
That’s actually a brilliant analogy which I might steal. America is moving from Roman Republic to Roman Empire
It's more accurate to say it's moving to late colonial era Britain, when the Empire was at it's most bulbous territorially, but we were past our best as pre-eminent power.
No, there is a crucial difference
America dominates its continent. Canada is its bitch, Mexico is a supplicant
American can retreat into isolation like no other nation on earth, and it will do just fine
Britain is a small damp archipelago off NW Europe, we had no mighty homeland to retreat to
America won’t be a global policeman any more, but they don’t care any more. Maybe China wants the job? Also, America is ahead in crucial technology - only marginally, but still ahead
American foreign policy is focused on containing China and under Trump taking them on in a trade war with tariffs.
They no longer care about Russia and will leave Europe and Canada to contain Putin
I'm in my early fifties so I'm not going to get called up to the colours. But why are we afraid of Putin's army? They've been unable to defeat Ukraine for over two years and there is no sign that they are going to anytime soon. Combined militaries of Europe (Nato or not) is surely a match for anything Putin can throw at the task? What am I missing?
Putin has the biggest nuclear missile arsenal in the world, bigger than ours, bigger than France's, slightly bigger even than that of the US and China combined.
If it was just Putin's conventional army that was the concern NATO would probably already have captured Moscow and removed him from power well before Trump returned to office
But the issue of nukes is there with or without US support, so I think the question still stands - why should we be any more afraid of Putin's army without US backing than we were with it?
I can see that Trump is doing huge damage to European interests by being weak towards Putin, such that Putin is more likely to think he can get away with his next power grab. But if it came to a land war I doubt Putin's conventional forces would be any match for Europe's, even with the disarmament of recent years.
If we accept America is Rome moving from Republic to Empire than Greenland and Canada etc make total sense
if the USA can somehow seize Greenland and persuade Canada into the fold then it has a totally impregnable position, it is North America, and ownership of the mineral wealth of Canada and Greenland means it cannot be menaced by China in any form
We should probably join. It is time for an Anglosphere. The Five Eyes as a nation would boss the world, which would be fun, especially after I’ve done 39 minutes on the elliptical
For all that the British Trump-haters protest about how awful he is, they do it from the same perspective as the Democrats. The Anglosphere is becoming more and more like a single polity thanks to the internet so actually uniting would make a lot of sense.
Canada and Australia and the UK and NZ culturally have more in common with each other than Trump's US or the EU, as well as sharing a head of state
The Anglosphere, if we are smart enough to bring it into being, will be UK , India and Nigeria.
No it won't, they don't want the King back and we don't want free movement of immigrants from India and Nigeria to us.
The inner core Anglosphere is only really ourselves, NZ, Australia and Canada as I said
As a matter of interest now Trump has abandoned Europe and effectively NATO in favour of doing a deal with Putin over Ukraine how can anyone prevent the surrender of Crimea to Russia ?
Europe has effectively been sidelined despite lots of hot air about big increases in defence spending that simply are not affordable with our present commitments to the NHS, the stupid triple lock, and unaffordable state pensions
Crimea is long gone I'm afraid.
My fear is that Putin will bank the Ukraine gains, and then look for the next low-hanging fruit (Moldova? Baltics?) now that Europe will no longer be able to rely on the US coming to its defence.
For good or ill, this is already one of the most consequential presidencies in US history, only three weeks in.
As a historian it amazes me that for so many people the lessons about appeasement appear to have either been forgotten or never been learned.
Appeasement gets a bad reputation but was entirely understandable. The politicians of the day had, for the most part, fought in the first war, or at least had close family that did. Even the UK, who got of relatively lightly, had around 850,000 dead as a result. There was no appetite in the UK for fighting another war.
And many of Germanies demands were not unreasonable. I think history judges Versailles to have been overly harsh on the German nation - the war guilt stuff etc. (Not to say that the Germans would not have been equally bad winners - Brest Litovsk shows that. Drang nach osten didn't start in 1933 after all). Remilitarising your own territory? Fine. Actually having an air force and expanded military? Ok. Re-integrating ethnice Germans into the Reich - well self determination ought to apply to all really.
And then in reality appeasement bought time. Time to build spitfire factories and design the Lancaster. And also by failing, it gave the causus belli - Hitler said 1938 was the end and he lied. So now we must fight.
Understandable but wrong. We know what happened after the fact. It's also worth pointing out that it meant handing over lots of people to a regime that was going to kill or enslave them, in the hope we could keep out of t. So it was morally questionable at the time - and was questioned by those who were clear-eyed about the nature of Nazism.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
It's not. Arguable, that is. Take, for example, USAID. The realpolitik behind that benefits the average American not a jot. It plays into their prejudices, sure, but that's a different thing. It's a cowardly move to do something that sends a message of 'America First ' but in reality won't solve any problem and will make a bunch of problems worse.
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
The Ukrainians depend wholly on US support. Of course they'll stop fighting.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
I expect Trump to withdraw all military and financial support to Ukraine if they do not accept 'the deal' when it happens
I'm not clear that that will have much likelihood of stopping them. One thing it would do is radically reduce US influence.
The last arms supply numbers for Ukraine I saw were: 1/3 USA, 1/3 Europe, 1/3 domestic. That was I think in a recent Perun, and is a significant shift from the USA towards domestic over time.
Heavy bullying of allies would also be required imo.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
It's not. Arguable, that is. Take, for example, USAID. The realpolitik behind that benefits the average American not a jot. It plays into their prejudices, sure, but that's a different thing. It's a cowardly move to do something that sends a message of 'America First ' but in reality won't solve any problem and will make a bunch of problems worse.
It’s just a load of Woke whining. Enough. Get rid of all these people. Do the same in the UK but even more vigorously
So it looks like Trump's promise of peace in Gaza and Ukraine lasted less than a month. Hamas already now refusing to release more hostages and Netanyahu threatening more Israeli bombing and special forces raids.
Now the US Defence Secretary giving Zelensky terms he clearly can't and won't accept so that conflict continues too. European defence spending still needed to be increased regardless anyway given the US is more focused on containing China and its own borders militarily than protecting NATO Europe
Trump is giving Netanyahu the All Clear to finish Gaza off for good. I suspect that will now happen. Israel will return to the fray - either next weekend or next year - and entirely level Gaza so that not even an ascetic hamster could reoccupy it
All the facts are a-changing. Pity the Gazans
My suspicion (and pthers on here) is that Hamas don't actually have any more living hostages, at which point they need to fess up or face the consequences.
And yes - pity the Gazans trapped under a fanatical ruling power in the face of a mighty conquering army. Its 1945 all over again and the Russian Guards are marching on Berlin.
Israel is going to seize the moment and enact a Final Solution to the Palestinian problem
Grim, ironic, bleak, hideously logical
It's not logical - hatred never is - but yes, it looks like they will try. All that was missing from Trump's words, so eagerly welcomed by Netanyahu, about transferring the population "someplace else", and levelling the site and beginning again, was the phrase "Final Solution".
The Israelis are upping the heat on the West Bank too, and to a lesser extent in Jerusalem...as NATO sets up shop in Jordan. Can't have a FS that's Gaza-only.
It is absolutely logical, indeed - if I were Israeli - this is what I would want to happen
October 7 made it clear that Hamas, the Gazans, the Palestinians, etc, can never be trusted with a 2 state solution (yes yes, history). They tried to rape murder kidnap and mutilate as many Jews as possible JUST FOR BEING JEWS. And then they boasted “we will do this again and again forever”. Given its history as a state born of the Holocaust, Israel cannot accept this, not now, not any longer
But what can they do about it? The only real answer is to drive the Gazans out of Gaza forever, and who cares how many die, and take over the West Bank and make life so insufferable the Palestinians eventually leave there, as well. Then Israel can have some kind of security within defensible borders (= enormous fences all around)
Trump is giving them a singular opportunity - unique in their history, unlikely to return - to do this. Right now Israel has nukes and Iran does not, so Israel can do this with relative impunity. The Saudis and Qataris etc will moan but do nothing
Ergo, I think it will happen and soon
For the purposes of clarity if i was a young Palestinian I would absolutely loathe Israel, Israelis, Jews - I would be filled with an unquenchable hatred - and for very very understandable reasons
But it is exactly this that means Israel has to act now
As i said: bleak
With all due respect, isn't the continued creeping encroachment of Israel into the West Bank a demonstration that they aren't in the slightest bit interested in a two state solution either?
If we accept America is Rome moving from Republic to Empire than Greenland and Canada etc make total sense
if the USA can somehow seize Greenland and persuade Canada into the fold then it has a totally impregnable position, it is North America, and ownership of the mineral wealth of Canada and Greenland means it cannot be menaced by China in any form
We should probably join. It is time for an Anglosphere. The Five Eyes as a nation would boss the world, which would be fun, especially after I’ve done 39 minutes on the elliptical
For all that the British Trump-haters protest about how awful he is, they do it from the same perspective as the Democrats. The Anglosphere is becoming more and more like a single polity thanks to the internet so actually uniting would make a lot of sense.
Canada and Australia and the UK and NZ culturally have more in common with each other than Trump's US or the EU, as well as sharing a head of state
The Anglosphere, if we are smart enough to bring it into being, will be UK , India and Nigeria.
No it won't, they don't want the King back and we don't want free movement of immigrants from India and Nigeria to us.
The inner core Anglosphere is only really ourselves, NZ, Australia and Canada as I said
Which is an enormous country in size, and with a population of 140m? We should do it
How fun to be a mighty power again. Under the Crown
Might have to kick out Quebec tho
Quebec only 10% English-speaking at home (oh, and Puerto Rico, only 5%!)
The US will release a Russian national as part of a prisoner exchange that brought home American schoolteacher Marc Fogel. Alexander Vinnik was arrested in 2017 on charges related to the laundering of billions of dollars using virtual currency Bitcoin. A US grand jury charged Vinnik on 21 counts related to the laundering of stolen funds. The White House confirmed to the BBC Vinnik's identity and impending release. President Donald Trump also indicated earlier that another detainee would be freed in the exchange for Fogel after he was released from a prison in Russia and returned to the US Tuesday night.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
In, and of, itself, I don’t object to that.
It’s the announcement of talks, and of concessions, pre-talks, and that Ukraine will not join NATO, that shows extreme weakness.
If I were an East Asian ally to the USA, would I be expecting the USA to stand by me, or to cut a deal with Xi and Kim, over my head?
So it looks like Trump's promise of peace in Gaza and Ukraine lasted less than a month. Hamas already now refusing to release more hostages and Netanyahu threatening more Israeli bombing and special forces raids.
Now the US Defence Secretary giving Zelensky terms he clearly can't and won't accept so that conflict continues too. European defence spending still needed to be increased regardless anyway given the US is more focused on containing China and its own borders militarily than protecting NATO Europe
Trump is giving Netanyahu the All Clear to finish Gaza off for good. I suspect that will now happen. Israel will return to the fray - either next weekend or next year - and entirely level Gaza so that not even an ascetic hamster could reoccupy it
All the facts are a-changing. Pity the Gazans
My suspicion (and pthers on here) is that Hamas don't actually have any more living hostages, at which point they need to fess up or face the consequences.
And yes - pity the Gazans trapped under a fanatical ruling power in the face of a mighty conquering army. Its 1945 all over again and the Russian Guards are marching on Berlin.
Israel is going to seize the moment and enact a Final Solution to the Palestinian problem
Grim, ironic, bleak, hideously logical
It's not logical - hatred never is - but yes, it looks like they will try. All that was missing from Trump's words, so eagerly welcomed by Netanyahu, about transferring the population "someplace else", and levelling the site and beginning again, was the phrase "Final Solution".
The Israelis are upping the heat on the West Bank too, and to a lesser extent in Jerusalem...as NATO sets up shop in Jordan. Can't have a FS that's Gaza-only.
It is absolutely logical, indeed - if I were Israeli - this is what I would want to happen
October 7 made it clear that Hamas, the Gazans, the Palestinians, etc, can never be trusted with a 2 state solution (yes yes, history). They tried to rape murder kidnap and mutilate as many Jews as possible JUST FOR BEING JEWS. And then they boasted “we will do this again and again forever”. Given its history as a state born of the Holocaust, Israel cannot accept this, not now, not any longer
But what can they do about it? The only real answer is to drive the Gazans out of Gaza forever, and who cares how many die, and take over the West Bank and make life so insufferable the Palestinians eventually leave there, as well. Then Israel can have some kind of security within defensible borders (= enormous fences all around)
Trump is giving them a singular opportunity - unique in their history, unlikely to return - to do this. Right now Israel has nukes and Iran does not, so Israel can do this with relative impunity. The Saudis and Qataris etc will moan but do nothing
Ergo, I think it will happen and soon
For the purposes of clarity if i was a young Palestinian I would absolutely loathe Israel, Israelis, Jews - I would be filled with an unquenchable hatred - and for very very understandable reasons
But it is exactly this that means Israel has to act now
As i said: bleak
With all due respect, isn't the continued creeping encroachment of Israel into the West Bank a demonstration that they aren't in the slightest bit interested in a two state solution either?
Well yes. Half of israel gave up on it years ago. Now all of Israel agrees
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
The Ukrainians depend wholly on US support. Of course they'll stop fighting.
It’s instructive, I think, to look at the output of members of this august forum in that light: Who does & who doesn’t turn when the far right comes close to real power? Some of her archetypes may sound remarkably familiar...
(I worry that I might be Mr G, but I shall do my best to prove otherwise should push come to shove.)
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
OK, well the point is simple then as to why that's a bad idea for the US. If we as Europeans now regard America as an unreliable ally that is no longer is any meaningful way a defender of post-war western democratic norms. Then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be looking to get into bed with China as an unideal but more dependable and practical partner with more to offer us, that deals can be cut with.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
In, and of, itself, I don’t object to that.
It’s the announcement of talks, and of concessions, pre-talks, and that Ukraine will not join NATO, that shows extreme weakness.
If I were an East Asian ally to the USA, would I be expecting the USA to stand by me, or to cut a deal with Xi and Kim, over my head?
If I was Japan or South Korea I’d be upping my defence spending to 5% of gdp and announcing my absolute loyalty to the US alliance (and also making sure my nukes are 2 minutes from readiness and meanwhile ensuring that everyone knows this)
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
OK, well the point is simple then as to why that's a bad idea for the US. If we as Europeans now regard America as an unreliable ally that is no longer is any meaningful way a defender of post-war western democratic norms. Then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be looking to get into bed with China as an unideal but more dependable and practical partner with more to offer us, that deals can be cut with.
Except that’s total fucking nonsense and you know it. You sound like a petulant Frenchman. Get a grip
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
The Ukrainians depend wholly on US support. Of course they'll stop fighting.
Wholly? Ya think?
Yes. They aren't winning back territory even with the current supplies afaics. A third of them dropping off would undermine the war effort fatally.
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
The Ukrainians depend wholly on US support. Of course they'll stop fighting.
Yes, comrade.
As well as your statement being factually wrong, in the real world, there are many, many examples of freedom fighters fighting imperialists and fascists and winning. Eventually.
“Trump says he has spoken to Putin and agreed to negotiate Ukraine ceasefire US president says he called Russian leader and agreed to have teams start negotiations immediately”
» show previous quotes The Chinese people tolerate the autocracy because it has brought them prosperity. If your parents and grandparents toiled in rice fields for 16 hours a day any system that brings you a nice apartment in the city, a car to drive and a job in a gizmo factory looks like a good deal.
Living standards in the US are, for most, going down. Unless Trump's rule by oligarchy significantly boosts the whole US economy, which it can't and won't because it's designed explicitly to benefit the super-rich, Mr Joe Public from Hickville, Iowa, is going to get more and more angry.
This is an important point about how far the average urban middle-aged Chinese has come in recent decades, but it is on a downward trajectory at the moment. In the past 12 months there has been a slight but discernible hollowing out of living standards in the cities. It seems to me that post-Covid the Chinese gvt has only been able to massage the figures and tinker with the economy so far and the money pot has run dry. Shanghai is the only metropolitan area that makes a profit at the moment and the debts elsewhere are eye-watering. There are signs that some smaller businesses - hit with increased taxes last year - have moved to Japan and South Korea, depriving China of young, homegrown, risk-taking talent. Foreign businesses are also drifting away from the mainland. You can see some of the grand property developments unsold and shopping centres with more shuttered units than ever. It's not Rotherham under Thatcher but it's a change from a few years ago. The dream that China would become a service and retail economy is further away from become a reality than at any time in the past decade.
I don't think China is on the brink of some massive convulsion, but there are clearly some social issues to deal with. There has been a smattering of recent attacks - sometimes random, sometimes targeting a particular group - often carried out by men in their 50s, long-term unemployed and with little chance of getting another job. There have also been a numbert of clever flash-mob-style gatherings of young people, which can't be characterised as a threat to the state but speak to a fledgling sense of power among those who can use social media.
There's also some chatter on the expat Chinese social media channels that there may be changes at the top. It's probably just gossip from former mainland journalists who want to boost their subscriber numbers, but there has been talk that Mr Xi may step down this year. He's old, he's ill, he made a mess of Covid, wolf warrior diplomacy isn't working... there are reasons why this may be true. But if it is there is some hope that it could mean a more economically liberal leader takes over. It's a problem if it's not, and a Putin-bot is ushered in as a catamite of the oligarchs, but there don't seem to be many voices calling for that or any potential candidates.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Russia will be back in Ukraine within 5 years after any 'peace'. Expect Trump's proposal of European peace-keeping force to go if an actual deal is struck.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
It's not. Arguable, that is. Take, for example, USAID. The realpolitik behind that benefits the average American not a jot. It plays into their prejudices, sure, but that's a different thing. It's a cowardly move to do something that sends a message of 'America First ' but in reality won't solve any problem and will make a bunch of problems worse.
It’s just a load of Woke whining. Enough. Get rid of all these people. Do the same in the UK but even more vigorously
Parrot incoherent alt eight nonsense if you like, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Which is a shame as when you bother to actually engage you aren't afraid to argue coherently for the controversial.
Russia will be back in Ukraine within 5 years after any 'peace'. Expect Trump's proposal of European peace-keeping force to go if an actual deal is struck.
I think you mean further into Ukraine.
Under any likely deal handled by Trump, Russia is gonna keep a good chunk of what it has invaded.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
It's odd how you miss out the president that was between those two.
Zelensky says the pair discussed preparation of a new document on security, economic cooperation and resource partnership.
According to the Ukrainian leader, the pair talked about opportunities to achieve peace and discussed their readiness to work together at the team level.
"No one wants peace more than Ukraine," Zelensky adds
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
They've been worthless ever since Obama did nothing in 2014. I'm not saying this to support Trump, just showing that Trump is simply saying out loud what everyone has already figured out. There will be some unintended consequences from this, Japanese nukes is one of them IMO. They're already quite far down the road of moving away from pacifism and I think we may just see them go all the way and develop a domestic nuclear weapons programme. They have all of the requisite tech and knowhow already.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
It's not. Arguable, that is. Take, for example, USAID. The realpolitik behind that benefits the average American not a jot. It plays into their prejudices, sure, but that's a different thing. It's a cowardly move to do something that sends a message of 'America First ' but in reality won't solve any problem and will make a bunch of problems worse.
It’s just a load of Woke whining. Enough. Get rid of all these people. Do the same in the UK but even more vigorously
Parrot incoherent alt eight nonsense if you like, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Which is a shame as when you bother to actually engage you aren't afraid to argue coherently for the controversial.
I don’t find you intellectually interesting enough. So your feelings are not reciprocated. Sorry
As a historian it amazes me that for so many people the lessons about appeasement appear to have either been forgotten or never been learned.
Appeasement gets a bad reputation but was entirely understandable. The politicians of the day had, for the most part, fought in the first war, or at least had close family that did. Even the UK, who got of relatively lightly, had around 850,000 dead as a result. There was no appetite in the UK for fighting another war.
And many of Germanies demands were not unreasonable. I think history judges Versailles to have been overly harsh on the German nation - the war guilt stuff etc. (Not to say that the Germans would not have been equally bad winners - Brest Litovsk shows that. Drang nach osten didn't start in 1933 after all). Remilitarising your own territory? Fine. Actually having an air force and expanded military? Ok. Re-integrating ethnice Germans into the Reich - well self determination ought to apply to all really.
And then in reality appeasement bought time. Time to build spitfire factories and design the Lancaster. And also by failing, it gave the causus belli - Hitler said 1938 was the end and he lied. So now we must fight.
Understandable but wrong. We know what happened after the fact. It's also worth pointing out that it meant handing over lots of people to a regime that was going to kill or enslave them, in the hope we could keep out of t. So it was morally questionable at the time - and was questioned by those who were clear-eyed about the nature of Nazism.
In terms of national self interest, I think he is right. The optimal strategy for the UK back in the 1930s would have been to stay out of the obviously impending conflict, wait for Germany and the Soviet Union to go to war, and then pitch in towards the end to avoid either of them dominating post war Europe. That course would have retained our empire - at least for some while longer - spared our cities and countless British lives - and avoided our tremendous post-war indebtedness to the US. But, given the evil spreading across Europe, that would have been a cynically and morally wrong stance to adopt.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
It's odd how you miss out the president that was between those two.
Well, it's not odd. But very telling.
Putin didn’t invade any new territory while Trump was in power.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
Europe was simultaneously relying on American troops to protect it and also constantly ridiculing the country for being the way it is. That wasn't a sustainable situation.
Russia will be back in Ukraine within 5 years after any 'peace'. Expect Trump's proposal of European peace-keeping force to go if an actual deal is struck.
I think you mean further into Ukraine.
Under any likely deal handled by Trump, Russia is gonna keep a good chunk of what it has invaded.
And since when has any other conclusion to this war been feasible? I said two years ago it would end like Korea
Europe was simultaneously relying on American troops to protect it and also constantly ridiculing the country for being the way it is. That wasn't a sustainable situation.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
Seems likely to me they get a lot of benefits by not ceding ground to the Russians and Chinese in global affairs, including less tangible benefits of cultural and diplomatic soft power. I struggle to see how giving that up aids their long term interests, but we're going to find out.
And Europe/UK certainly lacks the political will to stump up the kind of cash needed to compensate in the more direct kinds of influence.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
It's odd how you miss out the president that was between those two.
Well, it's not odd. But very telling.
Putin didn’t invade any new territory while Trump was in power.
We've been over this before; but Covid got in the way. You know, that little disease that Putin was scared shitless about? You don't simply set off an invasion like that overnight; Putin was planning it for years. Heck, the signs if the build-up was first seen OSINT in March 2021.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
They've been worthless ever since Obama did nothing in 2014. I'm not saying this to support Trump, just showing that Trump is simply saying out loud what everyone has already figured out. There will be some unintended consequences from this, Japanese nukes is one of them IMO. They're already quite far down the road of moving away from pacifism and I think we may just see them go all the way and develop a domestic nuclear weapons programme. They have all of the requisite tech and knowhow already.
By all accounts Japan has “oven ready” nukes they can assemble in days, maybe even hours - while still claiming to be “non proliferating”
I imagine these will now become ready-to-go in minutes and Japan will make that tacitly clear - like Israel
Russia will be back in Ukraine within 5 years after any 'peace'. Expect Trump's proposal of European peace-keeping force to go if an actual deal is struck.
I think you mean further into Ukraine.
Under any likely deal handled by Trump, Russia is gonna keep a good chunk of what it has invaded.
I think they were always going to, unfortunately. The difference is I think under Trump the amount will be larger than it would otherwise have been.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
And Bush and Sarkozy and Merkel and Brown and...
There are a lot of guilty men and women out there.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
Biden and Obama’s failure to deter Putin is indeed an ugly stain on America’s reputation.
And Bush and Sarkozy and Merkel and Brown and...
There are a lot of guilty men and women out there.
Gerhard Schroeder should be in jail for life. At best
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
They've been worthless ever since Obama did nothing in 2014. I'm not saying this to support Trump, just showing that Trump is simply saying out loud what everyone has already figured out. There will be some unintended consequences from this, Japanese nukes is one of them IMO. They're already quite far down the road of moving away from pacifism and I think we may just see them go all the way and develop a domestic nuclear weapons programme. They have all of the requisite tech and knowhow already.
By all accounts Japan has “oven ready” nukes they can assemble in days, maybe even hours - while still claiming to be “non proliferating”
I imagine these will now become ready-to-go in minutes and Japan will make that tacitly clear - like Israel
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
Russia will be back in Ukraine within 5 years after any 'peace'. Expect Trump's proposal of European peace-keeping force to go if an actual deal is struck.
I think you mean further into Ukraine.
Under any likely deal handled by Trump, Russia is gonna keep a good chunk of what it has invaded.
And since when has any other conclusion to this war been feasible? I said two years ago it would end like Korea
Yet again I am right
I'm bemused that someone who is so keen to have his previous posts deleted from PB is so keen to constantly proclaim that he was right in what he said in the past.
If Trump can end the Ukraine war, finally provide a solution for Gaza, get the Greenlanders on Ozempic, destroy all Wokeness, and unite the Anglosphere into a mighty new Empire ready to face down China, then he will be the greatest leader since Alexander of Macedon
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
Putin is 72, he can probably avoid becoming a vassal state in the 10-15 years he probably has left in power.
As a historian it amazes me that for so many people the lessons about appeasement appear to have either been forgotten or never been learned.
Appeasement gets a bad reputation but was entirely understandable. The politicians of the day had, for the most part, fought in the first war, or at least had close family that did. Even the UK, who got of relatively lightly, had around 850,000 dead as a result. There was no appetite in the UK for fighting another war.
And many of Germanies demands were not unreasonable. I think history judges Versailles to have been overly harsh on the German nation - the war guilt stuff etc. (Not to say that the Germans would not have been equally bad winners - Brest Litovsk shows that. Drang nach osten didn't start in 1933 after all). Remilitarising your own territory? Fine. Actually having an air force and expanded military? Ok. Re-integrating ethnice Germans into the Reich - well self determination ought to apply to all really.
And then in reality appeasement bought time. Time to build spitfire factories and design the Lancaster. And also by failing, it gave the causus belli - Hitler said 1938 was the end and he lied. So now we must fight.
Understandable but wrong. We know what happened after the fact. It's also worth pointing out that it meant handing over lots of people to a regime that was going to kill or enslave them, in the hope we could keep out of t. So it was morally questionable at the time - and was questioned by those who were clear-eyed about the nature of Nazism.
In terms of national self interest, I think he is right. The optimal strategy for the UK back in the 1930s would have been to stay out of the obviously impending conflict, wait for Germany and the Soviet Union to go to war, and then pitch in towards the end to avoid either of them dominating post war Europe. That course would have retained our empire - at least for some while longer - spared our cities and countless British lives - and avoided our tremendous post-war indebtedness to the US. But, given the evil spreading across Europe, that would have been a cynically and morally wrong stance to adopt.
The risk of course, is we’d have finished up with a very dangerous and hostile power, Soviet or Nazi, dominating the Continent.
One things seems likely now that it is clear how worthless US "security guarantees" are there is likely to be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
They've been worthless ever since Obama did nothing in 2014. I'm not saying this to support Trump, just showing that Trump is simply saying out loud what everyone has already figured out. There will be some unintended consequences from this, Japanese nukes is one of them IMO. They're already quite far down the road of moving away from pacifism and I think we may just see them go all the way and develop a domestic nuclear weapons programme. They have all of the requisite tech and knowhow already.
By all accounts Japan has “oven ready” nukes they can assemble in days, maybe even hours - while still claiming to be “non proliferating”
I imagine these will now become ready-to-go in minutes and Japan will make that tacitly clear - like Israel
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
People like Putin don't believe in failure. He'll loo at ways he can still get to his aims. Therefore it isn't a peace.
And he didn't just want to conquer Ukraine; his geopolitical ambitions are much wider. And he still holds them.
If Trump can end the Ukraine war, finally provide a solution for Gaza, get the Greenlanders on Ozempic, destroy all Wokeness, and unite the Anglosphere into a mighty new Empire ready to face down China, then he will be the greatest leader since Alexander of Macedon
Discuss
Leon: When he bends over his bottom is visible from space.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
OK, well the point is simple then as to why that's a bad idea for the US. If we as Europeans now regard America as an unreliable ally that is no longer is any meaningful way a defender of post-war western democratic norms. Then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be looking to get into bed with China as an unideal but more dependable and practical partner with more to offer us, that deals can be cut with.
Except that’s total fucking nonsense and you know it. You sound like a petulant Frenchman. Get a grip
Why is it nonsense? You are proposing realpolitik and making the decisions that look best for ourselves with no American underpinnings of our security - so why wouldn't we be better off, longer term, in increasing ties to China and letting transatlantic ones expire?
With those assumptions about American trustworthiness and help to protect and co-operate with Europe gone. You have two superpowers as potential primary security and trade partners and have to choose as they are at odds. Both of which are really not ideal and easy bedfellows.
Do you go with the one that's erratic, threatening to invade your territory, imposes tariffs on a whim, looks increasingly out of control and corrupt, and which is quite open in regarding bullying as its primary approach to foreign policy. Or do you go with the one that is still a nasty corrupt dictatorship but is more predictable, less noisy and is the up-and-comer.
Not saying we have a flounce and sign up to doing Beijing's bidding - quite obviously we are quite tied to the US for now. But where's the incentive to not say, increase trade cooperation with China or go with Chinese tech when it's more efficient or advanced?
Previously America could make the demands of a helpful friend to side with it. But if that's gone and it's everyone for themselves as you say, why shouldn't we want cheaper Chinese goods or infrastructure over an overpriced American version? Moreover, if they want some military or tech kit we have that we can sell them, why should we not take their money and create or protect jobs? Previously the answer was due to our strategic ties to the US, but if they're not worth a damn, as you say, then well.
Austria's far-right populist Freedom Party says it has ended its attempts to form a coalition government with the conservative People's Party, ÖVP.
The announcement follows several weeks of heated negotiations and marks the second time coalition talks have failed since September's election.
The ÖVP first attempted to form a three-party coalition with the Social Democrats and the liberal NEOS, then a two-party coalition with the Social Democrats - but both efforts collapsed.
With the Freedom Party (FPÖ) unable to form a government, Austria is now in an unclear political situation.
As a historian it amazes me that for so many people the lessons about appeasement appear to have either been forgotten or never been learned.
Appeasement gets a bad reputation but was entirely understandable. The politicians of the day had, for the most part, fought in the first war, or at least had close family that did. Even the UK, who got of relatively lightly, had around 850,000 dead as a result. There was no appetite in the UK for fighting another war.
And many of Germanies demands were not unreasonable. I think history judges Versailles to have been overly harsh on the German nation - the war guilt stuff etc. (Not to say that the Germans would not have been equally bad winners - Brest Litovsk shows that. Drang nach osten didn't start in 1933 after all). Remilitarising your own territory? Fine. Actually having an air force and expanded military? Ok. Re-integrating ethnice Germans into the Reich - well self determination ought to apply to all really.
And then in reality appeasement bought time. Time to build spitfire factories and design the Lancaster. And also by failing, it gave the causus belli - Hitler said 1938 was the end and he lied. So now we must fight.
Understandable but wrong. We know what happened after the fact. It's also worth pointing out that it meant handing over lots of people to a regime that was going to kill or enslave them, in the hope we could keep out of t. So it was morally questionable at the time - and was questioned by those who were clear-eyed about the nature of Nazism.
In terms of national self interest, I think he is right. The optimal strategy for the UK back in the 1930s would have been to stay out of the obviously impending conflict, wait for Germany and the Soviet Union to go to war, and then pitch in towards the end to avoid either of them dominating post war Europe. That course would have retained our empire - at least for some while longer - spared our cities and countless British lives - and avoided our tremendous post-war indebtedness to the US. But, given the evil spreading across Europe, that would have been a cynically and morally wrong stance to adopt.
Yes - but strategic interests are also about being clear-eyed about the nature of the threat you face. It might also have saved lots of British lives - not to mention others - to re-arm quicker and stand up to Hitler earlier. A few saw this as they were under no illusions about the nature of Nazism.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Are they? Or are they just renouncing the global policeman role to concentrate on realpolitik that benefits the average American - and we don’t like it?
It is, at least, arguable
The US has benefitted enormously from being world policeman since 1949. The way the world works serves their economic and power-political interests.
Here’s what Hesgeth actually said (Telegraph)
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
Where on earth does the Telegraph get "firebrand" from. Hegseth's spent the last 15 years sitting on a sofa presenting weekend TV. He's Fox News' version of Robert Kilroy-Silk. Except that it's the other one which is orange, in his case.
They have already burnt down 75 years of accumulated soft power in three weeks, and shown themselves as an untrustworthy ally.
The argument made is characteristically Trumpish - it will achieve the exact opposite of what they say their aims are, like everything else they have done. That may just be marketing and the reverse ferret is planned.
I expect that whilst talking to Zelensky, Trump is also talking on the other side of the blanket to Putin about access to minerals in the parts of occupied Ukraine they want him to keep. They have already widely undermined anti-corruption measures, so they may be planning to lift sanctions soon.
I'd concur with @Sean_F that the Trump regime is pathetically timorous, especially in their evaluation / self-image, and do not understand how the world works; their ignorance and the amount of things they are trying to brush under the carpet (20-50k stolen children, war crimes) are notable. When the USA cuts itself off from their support network, they make themselves weaker not stronger; the Trump regime seems to have a delusion about this.
It's possible that they are just trying to play poker with a big balls bid, but they just gave away half their chips and exposed their hand.
I'd concur with "Europe must shift for itself". One question is "Will it step up?". Two more questions are "Will Ukraine step into line?" and "Will Europe step into line, and how will its stance change?".
If Trump can end Ukraine, implement the final solution in Gaza, get Greenland, destroy all US institutions, and drive a divided Anglosphere into the grip of the mighty Chinese Empire, then he will be the most obnoxious leader since Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
People like Putin don't believe in failure. He'll loo at ways he can still get to his aims. Therefore it isn't a peace.
And he didn't just want to conquer Ukraine; his geopolitical ambitions are much wider. And he still holds them.
So what if he still holds them? The French still dream of evicting America from Europe and uniting it under their geopolitical leadership, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be allies with them.
Same people calling Starmer a traitor in respect to Chagos are more than happy to crawl up Donald's arse when he sells out Ukraine and NATO.
Betraying Ukraine, ending the rule of law, rejecting freedom of speech, giving up on free trade and abandoning NATO to own the libs. It's very first term of the second year on the PPE course at Oxford, otherwise known as essence of Spectator.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
People like Putin don't believe in failure. He'll loo at ways he can still get to his aims. Therefore it isn't a peace.
And he didn't just want to conquer Ukraine; his geopolitical ambitions are much wider. And he still holds them.
So what if he still holds them? The French still dream of evicting America from Europe and uniting it under their geopolitical leadership, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be allies with them.
Trump is to start negotiations with Putin to end the Ukraine war with Trump and Putin visiting each other and are to tell Zelensky accordingly
That feels like more Trumpist overreach, based on somebody's delusion. Is it another beyond-his-ken starting position?
If he's not getting involved militarily, how does he propose to tell anyone what to do in the end?
Ukraine won't stop fighting, whatever he does, because they know what happens.
If Trump & his manipulators try to make that happen, there will be a lot of behind the scenes threats being made to soon-not-to-be-allies. I'm not sure it will work.
The Ukrainians depend wholly on US support. Of course they'll stop fighting.
Yes, comrade.
As well as your statement being factually wrong, in the real world, there are many, many examples of freedom fighters fighting imperialists and fascists and winning. Eventually.
Well, I'm sure you'll be giving the guerilla resistance forces every support from your armchair.
What strikes me about Trump and his clique is how self-defeating they are.
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
Russians hate America in the same way that the French hate America. They're not really implacable enemies.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
What, if we fake referendums in Talinn and Warsaw where 99.8% of the population want to join Russia?
No, I'm talking about Moscow becoming an ally of the West.
Ha, you mean Washington become one of Putin's puppet states.
A delusional view of the balance of power.
Putin gets everything he wants. What does the USA get? Destruction of alliances that have been decades in the making and the foundation of their economic power.
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
He wanted to conquer Ukraine and reestablish Russia as an equal of America and China. He’s failed and now needs to turn towards the West to avoid becoming a vassal state of China.
People like Putin don't believe in failure. He'll loo at ways he can still get to his aims. Therefore it isn't a peace.
And he didn't just want to conquer Ukraine; his geopolitical ambitions are much wider. And he still holds them.
So what if he still holds them? The French still dream of evicting America from Europe and uniting it under their geopolitical leadership, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be allies with them.
"It promoted videos of raids and deportations – a grim and vindictive spectacle, but ultimately the kind of thing you could just about accept as the enforcement of pre-existing rules."
I find this attitude very weird, as if we should be selectively enforcing the law, that being here illegally really shouldn't be illegal at all and we should never look to remove anybody.
That is totally different from the argument of granting asylum and the method by which people got here to claim it.
Comments
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
Less dominated by England AND we can teach the Canucks to play cricket
In all honesty this is what we should have organised around 1910. Duhhhh
They talk about making America great, when all that they’re doing is retreating before people who hate America.
That’s where the comparison with Rome fails.
For all their faults, Roman leaders were not cowards. Trump and his clique are.
It is, at least, arguable
I can see that Trump is doing huge damage to European interests by being weak towards Putin, such that Putin is more likely to think he can get away with his next power grab. But if it came to a land war I doubt Putin's conventional forces would be any match for Europe's, even with the disarmament of recent years.
My fear is that Putin will bank the Ukraine gains, and then look for the next low-hanging fruit (Moldova? Baltics?) now that Europe will no longer be able to rely on the US coming to its defence.
For good or ill, this is already one of the most consequential presidencies in US history, only three weeks in.
If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new era that will transform European politics as profoundly as 1989 did.
My son did not know the references to "Rear window", which I bemoaned as him not knowing the classics.
Except... "Bart of Darkness" was first shown in 1994; forty years after "Rear Window".
But "Bart of Darkness" is 31 years old; and therefore perhaps as much worthy of a heritage status as "Rear window"...
Take, for example, USAID.
The realpolitik behind that benefits the average American not a jot. It plays into their prejudices, sure, but that's a different thing.
It's a cowardly move to do something that sends a message of 'America First ' but in reality won't solve any problem and will make a bunch of problems worse.
But, not in a good way.
“The firebrand US secretary of defence said the Continent would have to step up to support Ukraine and confront the threat of Russia as his country shifts its focus to tackling China and securing its domestic borders.
He also ruled out sending US troops to help keep the peace in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
“I’m …. here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
“We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”
If I was an American taxpayer I’d find that completely reasonable. America is threatened by China as it never was by the USSR. China is America’s equal (see: DeepSeek)
Europe must shift for itself
The last arms supply numbers for Ukraine I saw were: 1/3 USA, 1/3 Europe, 1/3 domestic. That was I think in a recent Perun, and is a significant shift from the USA towards domestic over time.
Heavy bullying of allies would also be required imo.
(oh, and Puerto Rico, only 5%!)
Alexander Vinnik was arrested in 2017 on charges related to the laundering of billions of dollars using virtual currency Bitcoin. A US grand jury charged Vinnik on 21 counts related to the laundering of stolen funds.
The White House confirmed to the BBC Vinnik's identity and impending release.
President Donald Trump also indicated earlier that another detainee would be freed in the exchange for Fogel after he was released from a prison in Russia and returned to the US Tuesday night.
It’s the announcement of talks, and of concessions, pre-talks, and that Ukraine will not join NATO, that shows extreme weakness.
If I were an East Asian ally to the USA, would I be expecting the USA to stand by me, or to cut a deal with Xi and Kim, over my head?
It’s instructive, I think, to look at the output of members of this august forum in that light: Who does & who doesn’t turn when the far right comes close to real power? Some of her archetypes may sound remarkably familiar...
(I worry that I might be Mr G, but I shall do my best to prove otherwise should push come to shove.)
As well as your statement being factually wrong, in the real world, there are many, many examples of freedom fighters fighting imperialists and fascists and winning. Eventually.
Ally my a***
US president says he called Russian leader and agreed to have teams start negotiations immediately”
Guardian
» show previous quotes
The Chinese people tolerate the autocracy because it has brought them prosperity. If your parents and grandparents toiled in rice fields for 16 hours a day any system that brings you a nice apartment in the city, a car to drive and a job in a gizmo factory looks like a good deal.
Living standards in the US are, for most, going down. Unless Trump's rule by oligarchy significantly boosts the whole US economy, which it can't and won't because it's designed explicitly to benefit the super-rich, Mr Joe Public from Hickville, Iowa, is going to get more and more angry.
This is an important point about how far the average urban middle-aged Chinese has come in recent decades, but it is on a downward trajectory at the moment. In the past 12 months there has been a slight but discernible hollowing out of living standards in the cities. It seems to me that post-Covid the Chinese gvt has only been able to massage the figures and tinker with the economy so far and the money pot has run dry. Shanghai is the only metropolitan area that makes a profit at the moment and the debts elsewhere are eye-watering. There are signs that some smaller businesses - hit with increased taxes last year - have moved to Japan and South Korea, depriving China of young, homegrown, risk-taking talent. Foreign businesses are also drifting away from the mainland. You can see some of the grand property developments unsold and shopping centres with more shuttered units than ever. It's not Rotherham under Thatcher but it's a change from a few years ago. The dream that China would become a service and retail economy is further away from become a reality than at any time in the past decade.
I don't think China is on the brink of some massive convulsion, but there are clearly some social issues to deal with. There has been a smattering of recent attacks - sometimes random, sometimes targeting a particular group - often carried out by men in their 50s, long-term unemployed and with little chance of getting another job. There have also been a numbert of clever flash-mob-style gatherings of young people, which can't be characterised as a threat to the state but speak to a fledgling sense of power among those who can use social media.
There's also some chatter on the expat Chinese social media channels that there may be changes at the top. It's probably just gossip from former mainland journalists who want to boost their subscriber numbers, but there has been talk that Mr Xi may step down this year. He's old, he's ill, he made a mess of Covid, wolf warrior diplomacy isn't working... there are reasons why this may be true. But if it is there is some hope that it could mean a more economically liberal leader takes over. It's a problem if it's not, and a Putin-bot is ushered in as a catamite of the oligarchs, but there don't seem to be many voices calling for that or any potential candidates.
Which is a shame as when you bother to actually engage you aren't afraid to argue coherently for the controversial.
Under any likely deal handled by Trump, Russia is gonna keep a good chunk of what it has invaded.
Well, it's not odd. But very telling.
According to the Ukrainian leader, the pair talked about opportunities to achieve peace and discussed their readiness to work together at the team level.
"No one wants peace more than Ukraine," Zelensky adds
Sure the US has more power than Russia, but if it is used maniacally it does not maintain its value.
Yet again I am right
And Europe/UK certainly lacks the political will to stump up the kind of cash needed to compensate in the more direct kinds of influence.
Anybody who thought Trump over Biden/Harris would be better in any way whatsoever needs professional help.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-forces-begin-massing-on-border-with-ukraine/
And you could see it this way: Trump in 2016 to 2020 was in a perfect position to stifle Putin's ambitions. Instead, he encouraged him.
I imagine these will now become ready-to-go in minutes and Japan will make that tacitly clear - like Israel
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
53m
Putin began the all-out war on Ukraine almost three years ago.
I very much hope I'm wrong, but I'm very worried that Trump has begun the all-out betrayal of Ukraine today.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1889730964261130382
The new name of the combine country will reflect both of our names.
Henceforth the United States will be known as the Great United States.
There are a lot of guilty men and women out there.
Even when he was not...
Discuss
87 years after 1938.
And he didn't just want to conquer Ukraine; his geopolitical ambitions are much wider. And he still holds them.
Why is it nonsense? You are proposing realpolitik and making the decisions that look best for ourselves with no American underpinnings of our security - so why wouldn't we be better off, longer term, in increasing ties to China and letting transatlantic ones expire?
With those assumptions about American trustworthiness and help to protect and co-operate with Europe gone. You have two superpowers as potential primary security and trade partners and have to choose as they are at odds. Both of which are really not ideal and easy bedfellows.
Do you go with the one that's erratic, threatening to invade your territory, imposes tariffs on a whim, looks increasingly out of control and corrupt, and which is quite open in regarding bullying as its primary approach to foreign policy. Or do you go with the one that is still a nasty corrupt dictatorship but is more predictable, less noisy and is the up-and-comer.
Not saying we have a flounce and sign up to doing Beijing's bidding - quite obviously we are quite tied to the US for now. But where's the incentive to not say, increase trade cooperation with China or go with Chinese tech when it's more efficient or advanced?
Previously America could make the demands of a helpful friend to side with it. But if that's gone and it's everyone for themselves as you say, why shouldn't we want cheaper Chinese goods or infrastructure over an overpriced American version? Moreover, if they want some military or tech kit we have that we can sell them, why should we not take their money and create or protect jobs? Previously the answer was due to our strategic ties to the US, but if they're not worth a damn, as you say, then well.
The announcement follows several weeks of heated negotiations and marks the second time coalition talks have failed since September's election.
The ÖVP first attempted to form a three-party coalition with the Social Democrats and the liberal NEOS, then a two-party coalition with the Social Democrats - but both efforts collapsed.
With the Freedom Party (FPÖ) unable to form a government, Austria is now in an unclear political situation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78x3klx4rjo
Some would call it very unpatriotic. Traitorous, even.
They have already burnt down 75 years of accumulated soft power in three weeks, and shown themselves as an untrustworthy ally.
The argument made is characteristically Trumpish - it will achieve the exact opposite of what they say their aims are, like everything else they have done. That may just be marketing and the reverse ferret is planned.
I expect that whilst talking to Zelensky, Trump is also talking on the other side of the blanket to Putin about access to minerals in the parts of occupied Ukraine they want him to keep. They have already widely undermined anti-corruption measures, so they may be planning to lift sanctions soon.
I'd concur with @Sean_F that the Trump regime is pathetically timorous, especially in their evaluation / self-image, and do not understand how the world works; their ignorance and the amount of things they are trying to brush under the carpet (20-50k stolen children, war crimes) are notable. When the USA cuts itself off from their support network, they make themselves weaker not stronger; the Trump regime seems to have a delusion about this.
It's possible that they are just trying to play poker with a big balls bid, but they just gave away half their chips and exposed their hand.
I'd concur with "Europe must shift for itself". One question is "Will it step up?". Two more questions are "Will Ukraine step into line?" and "Will Europe step into line, and how will its stance change?".
https://x.com/theipaper/status/1889684252729438311
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
6h
Tory benches look like someone has pissed on their chips
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1889651606624317493
I find this attitude very weird, as if we should be selectively enforcing the law, that being here illegally really shouldn't be illegal at all and we should never look to remove anybody.
That is totally different from the argument of granting asylum and the method by which people got here to claim it.