And the story continues. This means that no country will want to buy F16s. If you don't get support they are useless.
They are eroding really fast the US shine and trust in the world.
This is going to have a massive effect on the US economy, internal consumption will not save it. This is the end of an empire while its rich kings are golfing every weekend on the taxpayer dime using federal and local resources.
I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside.
How can any reasonable national leader justify building their military on American systems anymore?
Especially now that the U.S. government is also talking about not living up to its NATO obligations.
This is not gonna hurt the rest of the world. Defense is where the U.S. exports a lot. So cutting back on U.S. weaponry will only help other nations.
The same is true of Tech. Currently the tech industry is global, but expect it to become increasingly national. Considering this is one of the biggest and fastest growing industries in the U.S. and one of its biggest exports, again, this is only gonna hurt thenUS economy.
And the US’s dominance in this space is so high the rest of the world will simply push for open source at no loss to their own economies, since it’s only the US’s profit making will be hurt.
risk of war going hot aside, the long term effect of this is fantastic for the rest of the world's industries
AWS, GCP and Azure looked unbeatable a month ago
but today, if you're a government official in the UK, Poland or Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud provider?
absolutely not
they now have massive geopolitical risks associated with them due to being under the control of the increasingly unstable and authoritarian US regime that will sacrifice 80 years of foreign policy and soft power for a soundbite on fox news
> if you're a government official in the UK, Poland or Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud provider?
They don't. Sovereign cloud in EU has been progressing for a few years now.
Such that some of your mentioned "unbeatable" hyperscalers have already been positioning (e.g. ceasable infrastructure), and some interesting new players on the block. As well as old benefiting from the related market positions: https://www.oracle.com/cloud/eu-sovereign-cloud/
The way they are doing it is entirely air gapped systems, run by totally independent companies (not subsidiaries, totally separate legal entities owned and run by other people) that are effectively licensing the software.
So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but they don't have access as they are on another company's servers in another company's data center operated by another company's staff.
> So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but they don't have access as they are on another company's servers in another company's data center operated by another company's staff.
The US institutions don't hesitate to demand their companies to implement secret backdoors in their hardware or software, as evidenced by Snowden's leaks (for Cisco routers) and the Lavabit shutdown (mail company ordered to implement a tap on their clients' data).
Sure, you can have all you described, but how are updates vetted?
Disagree, location matters. It should be technically feasible to implement a code freeze (in software, or hardware) in a sovereign system when external partners’ motives become questionable. That being said in all likelihood that capability is cost prohibitive (speculation), but still co-location is a pre-requisite.
Cloud is going be far easier to transition for most companies compared to Office, Browsers, OS and Hardware. There are basically no non-american competitors, and so many companies deeply relying on the tech don't have the IT capacity to implement something OSS like Linux.
Yes, but if the government were to spend say 10% of their GPD on defense and infrastructure (Hi, German!), some of this spending might be in grants/tax breaks to help companies make this transition.
I think you underestimate what a capitalist system can accomplish, and how quickly.
It isn't fantastic on net, although it could be a net benefit for those industries that compete directly with (former?) American strengths. The other industries will no longer benefit from the highly competitive offerings of US cloud providers, which are for now, better and cheaper than the alternatives.
Even I, the founder of a small startup outside the US, caught myself considering things I never would have before.
Just last month, I had to change my dedicated server provider and was genuinely concerned about hosting my websites on US-based entities. Would Trump impose a tariff to antagonize my country and president? I don't have the resources to keep changing providers and migrating my services.
AWS and Azure have regional data centers in each one of the countries. Data in EU stays in EU. The CAPEX risk is entirely borne by US companies while being operated by locals following local laws. These states can easily nationalize these data centers if, say, US does something really bad to them. So the geopolitical risk for using AWS or Azure seems low to me.
The idea that we (Canada, any EU country, etc) can "easily nationalize" data centers running on bespoke hardware that we do not have a supply chain for, bespoke software which we do not control or have the source to, running workloads for customers as dictated by business relationships with a (now hostile) foreign company, with the descriptions of those workloads almost certainly stored in said hostile foreign companies local (i.e. foreign to us) servers... is absurd.
It's even more absurd to suggest that this can be done in response to the US becoming more hostile than they are today. By the time they are more hostile, we're talking about open hostilities. It's only safe to assume that they will have exfiltrated all the data they are interested in, and then sabotaged or destroy as much of the hardware as possible (as can be done remotely), making the data center next to worthless. And prior to nationalization it was "their data-center", they were entirely within their "rights" to sabotage and destroy it.
The time to migrate away from data-centers to minimize geo political risk is now, not when the current data centers operators are actively trying to deal damage.
'Data stays in EU' is not true: the US CLOUD act means that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies can and do access data stored in data centers operated by American companies, whether or not they are on American soil.
Similar to that jets effectively would be grounded the second that the US decides they would not be exportable to a former ally, my guess is that not many would, in this scenario, believe a former US owned AWS region in Europe to operate completely autonomously to the degree that it can be “easily” nationalized.
But long before that, I believe there will be other noticeable effects.
As someone working in a medium sized European company, with substantial investments across private infrastructures, AWS, GCP and some Azure, I can testify to that since last couple of weeks the Public Cloud Exit strategies around having services being prepared is a very hot topic. This concerns both existing services preparations as well as enforcing standards and configurations for new services.
What does the hardware give you? These datacenters are dependent on US teams, US processes using US maintained software. It's just a bunch of fast deprecating assets, which would need a full reinstall by a team of an AWS-like entity built from ground up.
Like I said, go have a look at what happens when we lose reserve status and get back to me about how what you just said is in any way relevant. Parenthetically bullshit like this is why I invest in real estate.
Nationalization of foreign assets occurs at an extreme level of hostility that stable European governments would have no chance of doing, unless it had been done first by the other side. It is the kind of thing that happened in Venezuela.
As a reference point, the US has not nationalized Russian or Chinese national's assets. Nationalization is much worse than poor diplomatic relations, on a scale of retaliation it is close to war.
This is an inherent property of closed source proprietary weapons. Which is why gun owners like stuff like the gen3 glock and ar-15 as everyone knows how to make the parts and the open source blueprints are put into manufacture by a gazillion companies to the point PSA shitwagon can compete with a Colt and interchange most the parts.
Maybe Europe should open source a fighter jet and let the world compete on how they'll manufacture it.
As an observation, when the US originally licensed out the AR-15 to other countries they often also had to license aluminum foundry tech at the same time. We take it for granted now because that tech is old.
The ability to scale advanced or exotic materials science at will was a cornerstone of why US weaponry is difficult to copy. People always underestimate this aspect but it is a major reason why manufacturing of state-of-the-art hardware is not fungible.
Europe's weaponry is already somewhat "open source". Many big things like aircraft and missile systems are designed and built with pan-European consortia. As a result, every country knows how to build these things.
Heck, even Italian Agusta sold some of their platforms to a NATO ally with build/iterate/export permissions...
Look up the F-35 sometime. For Germany's F-35 fleet, Rheinmetall was going to build the fuselages and do final assembly in Germany. Splitting up the work like this isn't unique to products from Panavia or similar EU-only consortia.
Now there are new ideas getting pushed (through influencers like Musk): that Ukraine "should be sanctioned", that Ukraine "should give their minerals to the US", that Ukraine "should give up their lands", that Zelensky "should resign" and finally that "US should leave NATO".
It’s really bizarre that we are looking at a near future where our best ally is Russia and West Europe/Canada and everyone else who was our friend is now our enemy. You literally couldn’t write this up as fiction and be taken seriously a decade ago.
We have an authoritarian nation conducting a literal unprovoked invasion of a liberal democratic country, this entire thread is objecting to the United States STOPPING providing materiel to said country . . . and yet people still think defense contractors are the "bad guys."
It's morbidly fascinating, really. If there's anyone who could be accused of profiting from blood money in this instance, it's companies like Sukhoi and Kalashnikov Concern.
We have a border conflict on the other side of the planet that doesn’t involve America, except insofar as defense contractors are ginning up a campaign to have american taxpayers bankroll one side of that war.
And throwing around words like “liberal democracy” is just how the neocons get americans to turn their brains off and support such endeavors, as with the iraq war, and as with vietnam and korea before that. It actually doesn’t affect america whether other countries are liberal democracies or illegal democracies or something else, so long as they don’t attack america and keep terrorists who might attack america at bay.
The present administration isn't really planning to cut military spending, they just want to redirect it. $4B of military aid was recently approved for another country.
Here's the budgetary outlook: You'll notice that defense spending is projected to have a slight increase in real terms, or a slight (0.1%) decrease in terms of fraction of GDP.
Yep. DOD spending is likely to shift, but not be reduced. The major firms are probably going to see some contracts cut or tougher competition from the likes of Anduril in certain domains.
DOD spending in IT-related efforts may also shift, Palantir will be a major contender here.
And a bit further back, ask anyone who the Red Army helped liberate in WW2 what has happened later, and how long it took the Red Army to actually withdraw.
The Manchurian Candidate was along these lines, though it has an (early) happy ending, before the candidate becomes president, at least in the movie. I haven't read the book.
It was idiotically unbelievable fiction until literally the day before Trump took office, even with project 2025 readable on the internet.
In fact, we discussed how the whole idea of an USA ex-president calling up a personal militia, trying a coup that could reboot a civil war, giving up half way, and not ending up in jail or even politically castrated was garbage fiction until 5 jan 2021.
The game Tom Clancy's End War is basically about a quadripolar world (you play as Russia, USA or Europe), where Russia hacks the EU WMD network and uses it to attack an American space-based weapon, using that as a false flag operation to make America go to war with Europe. Russia "joins" USA in an alliance and attacks the EU from the east while the US attacks from the Netherlands and Denmark.
I lived through the 1980ies, and I still have trouble processing the idea that the anti-Soviet, rah-rah patriot types that loved movies like Red Dawn are now in bed with the Russians. It's just bizarre.
It used to be that fascists and communists were our most hated enemies. How the tables have turned!
EDIT: more seriously, though, throughout the 20th century America hewed much closer to fascism than communism. It's always been there, if not always out in the open.
And that made sense, as there was a point in time that Russia did seem like it had a chance of becoming a normal democracy. At some point even the idea of the EU membership was floating around.
By the 2008 attack on Georgia it was clear that there is no democratisation of Russia, but some people didn't want to believe it for a long time, not even after 2014 attack on Ukraine.
EU membership was never feasible. Russia is too large population-wise, it would have threatened franco-german leadership of the EU. The EU, as it was back then was hanging in a delicate balance, where France and Germany usually had to agree on something to get things done, but other countries could form blocks of convenience to push their own demands through (eg. UK, Nordics and the Netherlands on fiscal discipline, or the Baltics, Visegrad and countries from the Balcans on immigration). France and Germany would not have wanted to lose that much influence, Poland would not have wanted to be between Russia and Germany again (politically speaking), and hatred of Russia runs rather deep in countries of its former empire.
Obama's 100% correct point was that Russia was incredibly weak economically. Obama never said we should disengage "with the rest of the world military." Bush, Clinton, W. Bush also tried to normalize with Russia. Everyone hoped Putin was sane. Obama strengthened our alliances. And he has been proven right. Ukraine has depleted Russias military stockpiles and their National Wealth Fund. Russia was weaker than people thought.
> You must have been traveling in some neocon circles a decade ago. But normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world military was the goal for us liberals back then
I don't know which is more wrong, the broad claim here or the claim that you are a liberal.
I mean, what you describe was generally the case...but between the fall of the USSR and the start of the new US-Russia Cold War around 1998-1999, with the belief that Russia was on a path that, while rocky, led to Western-friendly democracy with the right support.
From 1999-2014 (but generally declining through that period) engagement was viewed as useful, in part because Russia’s hostile turn was seen by some as curable with reassurance, but more because Russia was seen as a generally hostile generally but having useful alignments of interest in some parts of the world.
But by a decade ago, 2015? “Normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world militarily” was certainly not a common, much less the dominant, American liberal position on foreign policy.
Well, there was a point when everybody, including European politicians, wanted to normalize relations with Russia. But the guy had a different view and chose to invade Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. At that point some people still chose to believe that he can be civilized. It backfired badly in 2022. So now Trump trying the same thing and pretending to be Putin's buddy and trying his best to make Ukraine miserable is just sad.
Obama’s dig at Romney was well after the invasion of Georgia. what Obama correctly understood is that Russia’s designs on Eastern Europe don’t actually matter to America.
Russia didn't pivot its policy in 2008, it did so a decade earlier, when the second Yugoslavian war was carried out without buy-in from it (the first one was, to an extent, a joint NATO-Russian operation).
And then the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq[1], again, against Russia's protests, and by that point, that's like two countries attacked (one invaded and occupied) by NATO/most of its members, and you'd have to be an idiot to look at that and not notice that it shifted from a purely defensive alliance to an offensive one. [2]
Putin isn't an idiot, he looks at this and starts surrounding himself with buffer states, through both soft and hard power. Unfortunately, soft power isn't working out great in this, for various reasons.
---
[1] It's weird how when you mention Iraq in isolation, people think it's indefensible, but when you mention it in the context of Russian anxieties, all of a sudden, we are all bending over backwards to explain how it was perfectly justified, and it wasn't unprovoked aggression against an uninvolved country.
[2] It's been 14 years since NATO attacked a country, though (Libya in 2011 - if you squint hard enough, Syria might not count), so I guess we could once again reframe it as a defensive alliance. [3]
[3] It the US continues on it's insane trajectory and withdraws, it will definitely become a defensive alliance, simply because it will lack the ability to project power.
Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in the EU?
The US cannot support it's military projection without allies. If every US base has to be ran as 'fortress USA' the budget will break. Even just losing a few strategically located bases will greatly increase the cost of power projection.
All Europe has to do is stop all local support for US bases and force all resupply to be done via the US military and the bases existing infra, not via ANY civilian infrastructure (no civilian airports, no civilian trucking, no civilian shipping). That's just one pain point in the USAs soft underbelly that we didn't have to worry about before because we had allies.
US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of information out there for you. Not sure how an American can get to be an adult without understanding the background and reasoning.
We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to include limitations on their own power in their constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long, thought out standing position of our country that has 70 years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.
I think that's kind of the point. The Trump admin takes a very isolationist view of things, so I don't think they even want all those international bases.
It's not the point for the MAGA types. They want the power AND deference of the good old days, not actual feeble pullback and irrelevance. They think Europe paying it's share means Europe will pay for OUR military presence. Add on their kids no longer having access to military jobs/path to education and those communities will start to freak out. Trump wants to project power in the middle east. That's current done out of European bases.
> Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in the EU?
Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance for short-term gains.
I think that in a few months, we will see the U.S. economy doing very well and somehow rebuilding its industrial base. In the long term, U.S. influence and wealth will make up a much smaller share of the world’s wealth than it does today.
I do think there will be a recession yes. But within 6 to 18 months, the recession could be over with and growth will come back as the US rebuilds some of its industrial base. US imports and exports will decrease over time.
Note: it is my prediction at 70% (e.g. I think there is 70% that it will happen).
It could be over, but it won't be over, because he can't be trusted, changes position on important issues every night, and this does not create environment welcoming to investors. Nobody sane will commit to longterm investment. No investment, no growth.
> US imports and exports will decrease over time.
So prices will rise and and government expenditures will fall. Where exactly will that growth come from?
I think companies who want to access the large U.S. internal market will have an incentive to have factories in the U.S. That will likely fuel growth. The growth will be coupled with less imports and exports given nationalism and tariffs.
And if it is what the Americans want why not. But as the U.S. take this new direction, let's make sure former allies are treated with respect and given proper notice of the changes so that they can adapt their economies and defense postures.
It usually takes five to ten years to move a factory from one country to another, and it costs an enormous amount of money that mostly will not drive new profit. Costs in the US will be higher also. There is more to consider in moving a factory to the US than market access.
Could work. Or they could just decide to invest elsewhere.
I guess if the economy is in a recession and people spending less it is not the best place to invest. Unless it is for cheap labor but then you'll have problems with export tariffs.
I keep expecting him to rally his support base and attempt to overturn the 22nd amendment. Short-term "winning" might be exactly what he needs to rally them.
There’s close to zero chance the US would win a war with China in the event that it attacks Taiwan. Either china wins quickly, or it takes out all the assets which make it strategic in any case.
> Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance for short-term gains.
I'd say the other way round - rebuilding everything that was outsourced will take a long time, so hard times are ahead. In the long term, I hope the USA will be less dependent on China.
But at the same time the way it was done completely destroyed the credibility of the USA as a reliable partner, both in trade as well as military relations. Countries will organize new treaties, and the USA will be a powerful player but with far less influence than before.
I think the administration is gambling on being able to consolidate global power before anyone is going to have a chance to build anything. Europe is completely reliant on the US and US technology for defense right now, these systems took decades and trillions of dollars to build and refine, and an 800 billion EUR investment does not magically create a military industrial complex overnight. Decades ago in my early career I briefly worked on some logistics software for the Joint Strike Fighter project and had some contact with a couple of the army of contractors working on the project. The scale and complexity of this effort blows away anything else I've ever seen in my career, which includes a number of multi-billion dollar infrastructure and nuclear power projects.
Trump talks about invading Canada or Greenland and people act like it is a joke. I don't think it is.
The US is in a position to completely dictate to Europe what they will or won't do, using Russia as a proxy for now. We are 48 days in. A couple of weeks ago I replied to someone suggesting the US could provide weapons to Russia with disbelief. I no longer consider that an impossible scenario. Europe stops buying F35s? Trump tells Europe that if they don't buy them he's going to sell them to Russia. I mean that's a relatively tame response compared to the options on the table.
Right now the only chance for Europe is to stop this madness in the US. We have this "take it down" act, the executive order to produce a report advising whether or not to declare martial law, the January 6th pardon of the Proud Boys who are now effectively a paramilitary force of thousands waiting for Trump to deploy. These are all familiar elements in history and I think we are in for a bloody, bloody summer. I think we're going to see government forces opening fire on protesters, martial law declared, and the implementation of Chinese style suppression and crackdown on dissent online. Maybe attempts to strip US citizens of their citizenship and "deport" them for good measure, anything to try to sow fear into average people to not step out of line. If the administration is successful in quashing the opposition and getting everyone to go back to work, Europe could easily next on the chopping block. Remember all the things Bannon said about the EU during the first administration.
This might be the most delusional comment I’ve ever seen on HN. Crackdown on dissent online? That’s the explicit policy of our “democratic” European “allies” that the Vice President openly criticized in Munich. Opening fire on protestors? What protestors? And this talk of a thousands-strong Proud Boys “paramilitary” is paranoid nonsense.
There have been street protests here in Montana (red state) already (because he fired large numbers of national park and forest service employees and said any foreign students who made online comments supporting Palestinians should be deported).
Well I hope you are right. All of those things were already either done or tried by Trump during his last term. The trajectory is leading towards further escalation.
The protests will escalate in the summer, when the weather is warmer, more time has passed for awareness of what is happening to soak in, and students are on school break.
How do they justify buying US war tech? By understanding what the US will do to their country if they don't buy it, and figuring out how to sugar coat this to their populace.
This simply isn't true. Various countries bought F-35 even after recognizing it's far more of a geopolitical PITA than Rafale or Gripen because F-35 is world-beating. It is that much better than the competition that putting up with various restrictions is almost always worth it.
Where the competition is less slanted, yes you see countries selecting Leopard for their MBT over Abrams (the US won't sell the advanced Abrams armor packages). But when it's F-35 vs. literally anything else, the competition is for second place. You only really choose something else when F-35 isn't an option at all. Threats aren't needed when you just have to do a fly-off.
Countries do have choices and many did choose the us as security provider. Some thirld world countries recently switched away from russia and/or started to built versions of their own design of previously in license produced weaponry. Examplw: India
And Turkey buys from both. But India and Turkey have a degree of independence that small European nations do not have. The latter are entirely reliant on NATO for their security, and until recently this meant being friends with the USA.
I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
Nope, turns out that the American Empire is being dismantled by something else entirely. A subset of the populace that feels jealous of those with more and scared of social change, reacting to try to hurt their fellow country men? A megalomaniac leader who is somehow completely controlled by Russia? It's hard to get the full picture.
The myth of how much harm "leftists" can do/are doing in the US is probably what got you all here. It's another McCarthyist boogeyman, and it's not even being sold well -- a lot of the marketing's just outright lies, and people are eating that up.
The funniest part is how MAGA are literally rabid against anyone left of Bret Baier while embracing the overtly obvious Russian propaganda to the point where you start feeling sorry for them when the outright repeat Russian talking points e.g. deep MAGA don’t care a single iota for about anything more than 20ft from the US shores (because America first!) and yet they will have the strongest and most deeply detailed opinions on Crimea lol
During Trump's first term in office I developed a hobby wherein I would get hardcore conservatives to unequivocally support various talking points from the Communist Manifesto, normally in response to them bitching about "leftists". This takes a lot less effort than you might think.
I mean it's not like I told them they were agreeing with communist propaganda at any point during the conversation so from everyone's perspective in the moment everything was going fine. The typical workflow was something along the lines of them bitching about liberals which is fine by me until they misapplied the term leftist or similar at which point I'd normally inject a non-sequitur about how bankers and execs are piling up cash with a forklift while the folks that actually work for a living can't hardly get by. This never gets any pushback and provides the perfect opening to quote your choice of communist propaganda, which also doesn't get any pushback as long as you aren't goofy enough to attribute your sources. ;)
My favorite example is probably getting my wife's uncle to agree that the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains mid-rant about how right-wing militia groups are the only folks in the country with a finger on the pulse and how they were absolutely going to overthrow the federal government with a selection of canned goods and small arms...
That’s the most frustrating part. What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else. They’re so afraid of empathic policies it’s no wonder the country is falling apart.
> decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair.
It will easily take a generation just for people to find solidarity and courage again.
Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in the US fought monied interests for centuries.
It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their legislative puppets.
It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of progressive-minded people for the rich and their legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.
The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible.
The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it.
Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.
Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly.
I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.
A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch.
The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out.
We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget.
Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced.
Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline.
The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan.
I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.
Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock.
Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
But in the UK this effectively gives power to the executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and most ruling party MPs will
Have a government position - especially if the majority is slight.
Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) -
What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here).
I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.
Which other major countries have happier publics? The UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK citizens certainly aren't happy with low economic growth (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in Germany, etc.
I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed countries seem much less prone to irrational, life changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running through the American population that is causing people to “break”
Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab countries are particularly low, even though people there seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to escape to Europe.
There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally much more like a highly developed version of a Latin American country than a European country. Over time I find myself coming around to this idea.
The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
No, every country is one election away from this shit-show.
Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air.
At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order.
I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone.
Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is the exact same thing as dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't see them as the same. We don't even live on the same fucking planet.
In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.
There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about.
Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction.
Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place.
Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
If you have engineering or product skills, now is the time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire with fire.
We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic, empathetic software in the world and putting it into people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure for the common people.
We already have the tools. The problem is marketing, FOMO, etc. We can use stuff like Cloudflare restrictive DNS, a Pihole with additonal lists (like social media), a VPN, screen time or app usage timers, etc. Will and self-control are what's lacking.
The problem isn't marketing or FOMO. The problem is the average person barely understands what you just said, and we can't expect them all to become domain experts, especially when many people lack the fundamental research skills and experience needed to intuitively grok these technologies.
We have to use our intelligence and expertise to make applications which take care of users and their privacy, without them needing to suddenly become overnight computer experts. Most of the tooling I see today has (understandably) massive UX issues and is largely relegated to at least the mildly technical.
We need new and open Facebooks, TikToks, calendars, operating systems, etc. which protect and empower people but don't complicate their lives and stress them out, which leads to security and privacy fatigue. Even my current operating system, macOS, is so intensely user-hostile and obfuscated off the happy path, despite being heralded as a champion of human-oriented design.
We need a modern GNU-like organization but focused on building the social/web tooling that most people today are using.
Almost anyone who cares about their privacy should be able to Google how to improve it, find an article about VPNs, and sign up for Nord VPN (pretty user friendly and commercials everywhere). Dive just slightly deeper and you can find information on DNS and set the VPN to use the DNS you were recommended.
Most people don't care enough to even ask the questions. Creating competing services were the value differentiation is privacy (likely at the trade off of cost or quality) is bound to fail for that same reason.
Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to make money. This sort of issue has been building for a long time. It's based on abundance of resources and availability of choices. As we have more time and money to spend on things, we can make more independent choices and take positions on issues that we didnt even think about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks to tech).
The problem right now isn’t the rich. The problem is that half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You can’t rally the people against this when half the population is in favor of it.
I’m sure there’s a good argument that wealthy people and a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but it’s too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in public sentiment if this is going to change now.
Even if the outcome had been different in November. We’d still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot. The fundamental problem we have right now isn’t that Trump is President, it’s that about 50% of those who bother to vote think he’s worthy of it.
It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line. Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta, Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going to be dark.
I never thought that. They have always just played along with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don’t get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was because the leadership truly thought that was important deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but even then not fully, as he still cares about business more than principals, though he has more to lose personally.)
Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is that it's all just opportunism in either direction.
Most authors that look at the subject have usually proposed 3+ groups post-balkanization. Tends to depend on whether it's simply an "After America" balkanization or a complete apocalypse scenario. Table top roleplaying games are full of speculative fiction on those kinds of concepts. Nukes, or zombies, and sometimes black swan "magic" tend to be rather popular.
After America would be like the Fall of the Roman Empire, or the collapse of the Chinese Jin (romance of the three kingdoms) and Tang (five dynasties, ten kingdoms) eras, usually because of human bickering over power and control. Occasionally, systems like Shadowrun have a "mild" apocalypse that mostly serves as a catalyst for balkanization. Whatever vestiges of a state remained fall apart under the stress.
Complete apocalypse tends to be something like large scale devastation from a known threat that final gets used (nuclear, biological, dangerous machine sentience) and everybody's too busy dealing with their own issues to care about larger ideas like a continental federal state of "America."
Either way, tends to result in 3+ most of the time. From looking at the Roman Empire and the multiple collapses of China though, it really does not take anything especially dramatic to result in pretty severe balkanization. Often its the old "Blue and the Grey" divide and then most of the West just does their own thing. Occasionally it's more like East Coast, Heartland, and often the West still is not really included.
The result for the West has actually been one of the weirder parts of reading a lot of those settings. Often this undercurrent that the West has never really been a part of "America." The heavily populated East is still mostly fighting over the same issues with each other, the lightly populated West is just some far away land they occasionally pay attention to (mostly California and Texas).
For this to happen, the US population is probably too old on average, and too overweight.
Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry people are easier to provoke into fighting.
What is more likely is that significant portions of rural America break off and the part that's left doesn't feel it's worth it to take it back by force.
A lot of rural area across the country have movements to break states into pieces, or join other states. I don’t think most are very serious but at least two of them are serious enough.
One, there are a few counties on Oregon that want to redraw the boundary so that they become part of Idaho. This, I think, is only mildly serious.
The second is the border of Indiana and Illinois, which is serious enough that the Indiana state legislature has voted to create a commission to work on it. It was a bipartisan vote, too. Because there are a number of rural counties in Illinois that would like to join Indiana, and two urban counties in Indiana that say if the option is on the table they’d rather be part of Illinois. Such a thing would need both states to agree and then send it on to Congress, but ultimately I don’t think anything will come of it.
When you look at state funding, these urban counties are sending more tax dollars to their respective state capitols than the states are spending in their counties. In the case of these rural Illinois counties, the state is spending between $5 and $6 per tax dollar collected. Does Indiana really want to take on such welfare queens? And give up some of their few donor counties in exchange? It seems hardly likely!
That’s the rub all across the US. The urbanized areas are subsidizing the rural areas. Are the rural areas prepared to do without such subsidies? They can say “the cities can’t live without the food we grow”, but the entirety of human history shows that the cities always come out ahead in these transactions.
The Jefferson area of CA seems about as serious as Oregon.
With out current structure of governments, as we get around/over 80% urbanization, the rural areas will just get steamrolled and want to break away due to a lack of agency. If you study people in the "western Idaho" area and on the Oregon coast, it would be easy to see that they are two different nations.
Also,do you have e a source for the 5x tax collected number? The 5x seems really high. I couldn't find one for Indiana, but Illinois shows it's <2x.
Right. So anyway, if various states (or the whole country) breaks apart based on urban/rural divides, the urban areas have very little incentive to try to reunite. It’s a losing proposition for the rural areas.
My personal opinion is that our state and nation legislatures have way too few members given our current populations. For example, the US House should have some sort of dynamic membership count: the smallest odd number such that when you run the apportionment algorithm the smallest state has 3 members. That’s probably somewhere around 1100 members (just spitballing).
Economics aren't the only factor, so the rural areas may not care so long as they are free. That also assumes the rural areas keep the same service levels and regulations. It's possible they could create conditions to lure some industries to them. They would also have to raise food prices to deal without subsidies. It's likely many services would see reductions, such as road maintenance, anything heavily relying on grants, and possibly schools. Certainly the colleges in the article would be closed.
Decreasing the ratio of constituents to representatives won't really work. It may work at the margins, but you will still have the mismatch in proportions between urban/rural.
California has multiple times brought up splitting out into multiple states, its made it as a prop a few times too. I think most people want it to happen, its just tough to figure out what the best split would be
The youth are also of poor quality these days. It was one thing in 1860 when a given 18 year old was built like an ox from hauling bales of hay or whatever else. Today most 18 year olds are sedentary. We don’t even do the mile run in gym class anymore.
Gen Z are a lot fitter and drink and smoke less than my Gen x peers afaict. What’s more, the 90th centile Gen zer is a -lot- fitter. Not everyone needs to join up…
Well, looking into really old draft records, you will find a lot of disqualified recruits with bad health - tuberculosis, parasites, or general bodily problems caused by malnutrition.
But yeah, there also was a lot of physically strong young people to choose from.
Yes, exactly. Some of the federal farm subsidy and low-income nutrition programs we have today came out of findings in WWII that many potential recruits who had grown up during the Great Depression were literally malnourished: too weak and underweight to be combat effective. While the new HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is kind of wacky and has terrible policies in many areas, he at least recognizes the serious state of youth obesity and poor nutrition.
Don't forget school lunch programs were pushed by the military in the 1946 National School Lunch Act (America's Great Age to MAGA) to improve the fitness of potential recruits. Programs the Republicans now attack as 'woke' nonsense.
Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down to the military.
The military have the tanks, the air support, the logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support equipment, and all the training to use everything.
A split within the military, that gets real ugly real fast.
I think any civil war would have a split within the military, because in your premise that they're using tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.
>What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else. They’re so afraid of empathic policies it’s no wonder the country is falling apart.
Maybe on economic issues. On certain social issues it's definitely not "centrist" and arguably further left than other developed countries.
I agree, but would add that many issues (left and right) here are more extreme. I think two things are a self-reinforcing cycle driving both ends of the political spectrum to extremes. First, hyper-partisanship has emerged where it was formerly held in check by social norms within our political institutions. Second, US politics has become a national pastime, replacing sports and other things in our attention. Everyone is able to be part of the commentator class by virtue of social media (I cite this thread, including my comment, as an example of this).
Normie centrist views tend not to garner much attention either in traditional media or in online forums. Instead, we tend to focus much more on the issues that clearly and quickly establish our membership and bonafides in a particular group.
The same extreme-voices-get-heard feature gets recapitulated through our political system. Especially the rise of getting primaried from the left or right. Break ranks with your side? Get primaried. The result is that, to get heard over the fray, political candidates need to articulate more extreme views and stick to them.
Lots of words have been spilled about how various electoral reforms could get us out of this mess. For me, I believe ranked choice voting and open primaries represent an optimal trade-off between "legal, and plausibly implementable" and "yield biggest improvements to electoral system." A major complaint against ranked choice voting is that it tends to bias for more moderate centrists, which I think would be a not-bad problem to have.
For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour, "defense", energy, firearms, speech, religion and basic human rights, both main parties in the US are far right by Western standards (and true outliers for most).
It's really only identity politics where the left is actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
>For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour, "defense", energy
Those are arguably closer to "economic" than "social". Energy is plainly economic. Even healthcare and labor at the end of the day, boil down to dollars and cents (ie. how much people are paying for healthcare and how much they earn).
>speech
Having the strongest free speech protections in the world is "far right" now?
>religion
The Republicans might be "far right" on religion, but I don't see how the Democrats are. They can certainly be more secular (think the CCP), but at least they're not obviously religious. Compare this to the UK and Denmark which have state regions, and the christian democratic union in Germany.
>basic human rights
Clarify. "basic human rights" has been muddled by the left to include mean stuff like "healthcare", as well as the right to mean "right of babies not not get aborted" and "kids not being groomed".
If you think the UK state religion is in any way relevant to this then you are sorely mistaken. The Church of England has little to no influence on daily politics and is a historical oddity. All political parties, left and right, are essentially secular. Religious politicians basically have to keep their faith quiet while gaining and maintaining office. Blair is a good example of this.
> It's really only identity politics where the left is actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
That rings true, but how did the US get here? How did identity politics suddenly come to be the most important thing, bringing the world order to its knees?
I don’t actually think it’s far left though. And they are certainly much less effective than other socially liberal parties in Europe.
In the UK it was our right wing party that legalised gay marriage, for example.
Europe is a lot more woke than the US (and a good thing too)
US is still pretty far-right on social policy by the standards of most of Europe. This is an average, there’s lot of outliers such as even the proper left in France being weird about Muslim dress.
Identity politics is on the right in Israel. In a general sense I think it might not belong on the same spectrum as redistributive policies or militarism.
The biggest win the Republicans and billionaire class ever had was convincing the American public that left == liberal. It's not. Blue hair, trans flag, black lives matter, pro-palestine, etcetera; these are socially liberal stances. "Left" doesn't mean any of these things for the rest of the world in a conventional sense. Left means unions, workers rights, socialism or sydicalism; generally, power to the workers/99%/people rather than the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
Americans should continue to conflate socially liberal and economically left-wing at their own peril.
It's worth noting that labor unions have mobilized all over the globe in solidarity with Palestine. Given that the main bone of contention in this country is continued material and financial support to a military campaign it feels odd to lump in with "social liberalism".
>Left means unions, workers rights, socialism or sydicalism; generally, power to the workers/99%/people rather than the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
Everyone claims they're the true voice of the 99%. Trump, despite being a billionaire, claims he's defending Americans workers by imposing tariffs and deporting undocumented immigrants. More broadly the right claims that they're fighting against the "elites" in the media/academia/corporations/"deep state".
It was surreal watching Trump, the man who has made his very name into a corporate product, campaign against Hillary Clinton with claims that she's too influenced by corporations. And, somehow, our politics managed to get even stupider since then.
Well yeah, plenty of developed countries are xenophobic and bigoted in terms of same sex marriage still. I’m curious what “social issue” you are imagining that is represented by the american left but not the european left otherwise.
The US left wing is far more supportive of trans rights, particularly youth gender affirming care, than its counterparts in Europe. For example, I do not think you'd see a Democrat outside of a swing district publicly say, "It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," as Keir Starmer has. Also, while on the campaign trail he said he wouldn't scrap the proposed ban on teaching young people in England about transgender identity in school, saying, "I'm not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender," language not too dissimilar from the Trump administration's.
> For example, I do not think you'd see a Democrat outside of a swing district publicly say, "It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," as Keir Starmer has.
Maybe a year or two ago…the political landscape has shifted drastically in recent years and months.
California governor Gavin Newsom has a new podcast, and recently told Charlie Kirk (yes, he invited Kirk to pander to the young white male voters) something along the lines of “trans people shouldn’t play sports”.
That's not what Gavin Newsom said. What he actually told Charlie Kirk is that it isn't fair for women to have to compete against biological males. You can disagree with him but don't misrepresent his position.
Yes, that's my point. And there are many Labor MPs that are to the right of Starmer on this issue. The party that's closest to the Democrats (and arguably slightly more left on the issue though not by much) are the Lib Dems, and they got, what, 12% of the vote?
Also, do you not think American right wing media is not capable of whipping up panics? This feels like special pleading.
Outside of trans rights though, it’s hard to see what issues the us left is to the left of Europe on.
What’s more, we actually have left wing parties in power and using govt machinery to advance what would now be called ‘woke’ in the us.
Which? Be clear, because the only ones I hear you dogwhistling here are Trans folks rights or Black folks rights if you are vaguely referencing "social issues" and generally America's historical context there is Pretty Dang Bad.
There is nothing dogwhistleable here, US leftist race policy is a huge outlier in the Western world and I would hesitate to call it "liberal". Once someone groups people into racial groups and treats them like interchangeable Lego bricks by color, they have left any pretense of liberalism, which by necessity considers an individual to be the smallest and most vulnerable minority of them all.
That’s been shared a lot on social media but those posts tend to leave out the context that this was only in technical language around IVF, not a broad change, and that it was intended to resolve confusion around what “mother” means in the context of what goes on a birth certificate in the case where a same-sex couple means the child has two mothers.
Thanks for clearing that up, it really changes the story for me. This actually came up as only 4% reported by the left in Ground News' weekly Blindspot Report [1][2]. It only lists one left-leaning source, also from USA Today [3], but not the one you linked, one critical of the measure. I guess Ground News really didn't help here in guarding against bias. That's pretty disappointing.
I get being against this sort of thing, but it’s wild to me how people are SO against something so inconsequential (official language on government forms or whatever) that they’re willing to instead support a party that’s actively pushing us into authoritarianism.
Like sure some inclusive language is silly, but it’s a lot better than losing our national parks, destroying our social safety nets, celebrating cruelty to immigrants, and ripping the constitution to shreds in the process.
Whether a birth certificate for a same-sex couple in the IVF case mentions "mother" or the less ambiguous "inseminated person" is indeed fully inconsequential for the vast majority of the American public.
Changes in official government paperwork to be more inclusive are very much not "control of language and attempts to assert control over its use and definitions".
I mean, you could describe the Trump administration's executive order requiring government agencies to stop using Gulf of Mexico and instead use Gulf of America as simply "changes in government paperwork." But I think it's obviously also an attempt to change the language.
I wouldn't classify it as "changes in government paperwork" since the EO defined the official name for a geographical feature, very different from some law changing the usage of a term in a government's form. Quite a different level and degree, if that's out of consideration everything can be reduced to some more general form to be played as equivalent.
My feeling is that people aren't much against something inconsequential per se, instead they are against something that's out of their status quo and that question some underlying values they haven't ever questioned themselves (for example: genders).
Instead of being curious why exactly some people are proposing something that challenges their worldview they instead immediately allow their fear to take over, and reject the change.
It's the same pattern that non-accepting parents of gay children tend to go through when their kid comes out of the closet; in that case a lot of them have a change of heart into acceptance because they love the person, over time they are able to overcome the fear and understand a new worldview.
Not so much for the masses with flames being fanned by politicians wanting to capitalise on that fear, they are kept in fear, they are told to reject any attempt to educate them, the messaging calls it "evil" or "not from God" or "only for betas", adapted to the audience's most chauvinistic identity (religion, machoism, etc.).
Since it's easy to manipulate those into hating whatever is the bad-word-du-jour then those same politicians can attach any policy with "combating bad-word-du-jour" and a lot of the believers won't question it much.
It's disheartening because even though I'm quite progressive and leftist (in the European sense), I still believe that conservatism is necessary to balance out the discussion, unfortunately it's also an ideology intrinsically bound to the fear of change, a feeling very easy to be co-opted by power-hungry people.
It's an ideology that rejects rationality and almost completely embraces emotion (fear), which is rather ironic since its most fervent followers want to believe they are the most reasonable and logical ones.
> the recent proposal to change the word "mother" to "inseminated person" in Wisconsin state law
Life gets easier once one realizes that talking points like this are at best missing all important context, if not outright deceptive. Other examples would be the "They spent $X studying OUTRAGEOUS_THING"
The exhausting thing is doing to required research to point out to people that the outrage pornography sound bite they're screaming about is, of course, completely fake and designed to enrage them.
Then they thank you for the information and go on to completely believe the next one with no pattern recognition whatsoever.
Indeed. Social democracy is a requisite for stability. It’s surprising it lasted this long. I guess the New Deal might have been instrumental in postponing collapse.
People forget, how oligarchies are actually not desirable for the oligarchs. Because there is no law and no stability. The zhar/king has a bad day and the whole crowd around you shifts in some economic landslide. Oligarchs in Russia came and went, and they took their money to europe/swiss/uk/us - because you can not thrust a oligarchy, when you are today in favor of the golden god king.
Such moves towards such systems, are usually desperate jumps of those whose empires are under threat of being broken up anyway.
The countries that have had the most successful but empathetic policies have reversed course on the key issue of immigration: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigrat.... MAGA would be thrilled to achieve the reversal of immigration that's happening in Denmark, for example.
> That’s the most frustrating part. What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else.
The most frustrating part is that Trump is sabotaging the US by enacting the pseudo-anti war policies that the republican party has been vilifying for decades.
Trump is the result of anti-system vote by people who were ignored for decades by both parties.
Trump obviously won't solve their problems. Inequality won't decrease. Healthcare won't become more accessible. Workers' rights won't be fixed. Homes won't get more affordable. Inflation won't drop.
So - even when Trump disgraces himself completely - these disappointed voters will just vote for another anti-system con-man.
Trump's core voters desperately need Sanders to win. But they will vote Trumps and get fucked over time and time again.
This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the system so hard they destroy it.
> This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the system so hard they destroy it.
Funny. Reminds me of the last time I visited Brazil. In the last day I heard someone justifying voting for Bolsonaro by saying "things are so bad that I just want someone who will destroy everything".
It's weird, they think things can't get any worse. In my country, union got us 7% raise in 3 years, thats 4% if you discount union membership cost and people talk about leaving union "because it's not worth it".
Without union we get nothing and people before us had to fight to get us these rights and now some people want to throw it away because they didn't get big enough raise.
Bolsonaro is a symptom of the same disease as Trump. At least he's ineligible until 2030. Who would have thought that Brazil would have stronger democratic institutions?
There are safety features built-in in more recent democracies. USA is just a very early implementation and hasn't been keeping up with the patches.
2-party system is bad. Regional representation instead of population representation is bad. Allowing gerrymandering is bad. Letting companies/oligarchs to contribute to election campaigns is VERY bad.
All of this ends with a system that cannot reform itself. It's a common failure mode in early democracies. There are known workarounds.
I realize this is just my own idea, but I think the Constitution forbids gerrymandering, by demanding a "republican form of government" in the states. The question is how this opinion would stand up to being tested by the current Supreme Court.
First-past-the-post voting systems are extra dangerous. I.e. where all the votes of a district go to the winner of the district.
If instead all votes go proportionally according to what people voted, you get less extreme policies and encourage parties to build coalitions. Nobody is happy, but fewer people are extremely unhappy.
You can find plenty of "workarounds" in any Wal-Mart or pawn shop in the US. You can even buy a "workaround" from someone directly and avoid a background check.
It's not like in authoritarian countries where their votes just go down to trash. It's not like they cannot voice their opinion or organize demonstrations. I agree there is a sentiment of "I'm ignored", but at any point in time it's up to them to not being ignored in democratic society.
Bernie Sanders would not fix the American Problem, because he too would be unable to do anything. It's a mistake to think that there was one recent event decided on the margins that somehow led to collapse.
The American Problem is not one of systems or policies. The American Problem is about people, what they do to each other, and that you allow that to happen. The constitutional arguments they have are Red Herrings. What matters is what people do, and what they want to be allowed to do by their arguments.
This is just a baffling attitude. Sanders is the only name that regularly gets respect from every corner of the political spectrum. His most vociferous critics by a long shot are centrist democratic loyalists.
Look, all I have is polling data from multiple national presidential elections to back me up.
I know many Trump supporters but not a single one of them respects or like Sanders, and all the polling data I can find points out that this is the general trend.
Any Sanders path to victory involved massive amounts of youth turnout that would have otherwise stayed home, and there's basically zero Republican leaning voters that would switch to Bernie. And the swing vote swings massively to Trump when Sanders goes against Trump.
I wonder what those swing votes would be today, now that people start to realize how quickly and efficiently the USA is being destroyed from the inside, right now.
Sanders means well in the things he does, but he's unfortunately very very .. how do I put this, stupid in his ideas.
Even his own party never votes for his stuff because his ideas are always terrible. They are always emotional, but he never thinks them through. I don't think he's able to think them through.
I'll give you an example from a different person: There's someone on Twitter who wants a 0.1% tax on stock transactions, and then he calculates that this little change will fund everything we could possibly want. He utterly ignores that if you put this tax people will change their behavior! There will be fewer transactions, and this tax will fund nothing at all.
Sanders is the same way: He makes an idea, and completely ignores how people will respond to it.
Is there much overlap in Trump and Sanders policy views?
I wouldn't expect voters for either candidate to agree with much from the other candidate, but maybe I don't know their platforms well enough to see the similarities.
People are definitely voting for policies. There was a study that found trump spent a higher percent of time talking about policies than Hillary. The PBS documentary on 2016 had an anecdote than in 2016 the trump rally crowd would chant things that became trump policies.
Trump surely has policy views. Maybe they aren't consistent, and he often speaks contradictory to whatever his views are, but you're underestimating him if you believe his has no views. If you consider him a threat, underestimating him sounds dangerous
> Trump _is_ the policy and the view.
That may be true for voters, I know quite a few Trump voters that only care to vote for him and couldn't explain any coherent policy reason for preferring him. That has no bearing on Trump's own policies or views though.
I assume you mean they're racist. Yes I do know one openly racist person who happened to vite for Trump. I don't think he voted for Trump for that reason though, he's just been a republican voter for decades if I'm not mistaken.
I distinctly remember the lead up to the 2016 election. I remember having one conversation with a friend who is relatively affluent. Not independently wealthy but a top 1% earner. I had been watching Bernie gain steam and I brought this up in the context of how unhappy with the status quo people seemed to be.
This immediately got dismissed. "Everything is fine". It is a mistake to paint all Trump voters as just being proto-fascists (which the majority are). Many ended up there because they desperately wanted change and establishment candidates were just offering more of the same. Hilary absolutely was a "more of the same" candidate. And the entire GOP primary field (21 at one point) were "more of the same". That's why Trump won the primary. That, combined with Hilary's massive negatives and her generally being a terrible candidate, were why Trump won in the first place.
2020 was an anomaly in many ways. We had Covid lockdowns and were coming off 4 years of Trump chaos. Because of the lockdown, voting was made substantially easier with early voting and mail-in ballots. The more people vote, the more Democrats win. It's why voter suppression is a key part of the Republican platform (make no mistake, "voter ID" is simply voter suppression). Were it not for the pandemic, I very much suspect Trump would've won re-election. Biden was a terrible candidate and never should've been the nominee. Clyburn basically handed him the nomination (in South Carolina) and Warren stayed in long enough to split Bernie's vote, the second time the DNC had actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign.
Remember in 2020, Bernie had Joe Rogan's endorsement.
The Democrats are really just Republican Lite now. Kamala's immigration plan was Trump's 2020 immigration plan. Kamala abandoned opposition to the death penalty from the party platform and called for the most "lethal" military. She courted never Trumpers like Liz Cheney. Like seriously, who was that for? She refused to separate herself from Biden on any issue despite his historic unpopularity. And of course, she refused to deviate from the deeply unpopular position on Israel-Gaza. In short, she offered the voters absolutely nothing.
In this election, progressive voter initiatives outperformed the Democratic party by a massive margin. For example, minimum wage increases passed in Missouri, a state Trump won by 22. Trump won Florida by 14 yet recreational cannabis and abortion protection got 55-59% of the vote (unfortunately, you need 60% to pass in Florida).
The Democratic Party exists to actively sabotage any progressive momentum. We didn't get a convention primary after Biden withdrew because the DNC was scared a progressive candidate would win. They stuck us with Kamala to avoid that.
My point here is that Trump doesn't have and has never had a majority. He only won each time because there was effectively zero opposition. A chunk of Trump's base are simply people desperate for change. At least Trump lied to them and gave them something to vote for. Democrats wouldn't even lie to them and tell them they were going to fix housing and egg prices and give them healthcare.
This is the real bisector. If one party gets to use magic and capture the stupid vote, what's the other party supposed to do? Lie more? Lie less? As long as magic appeals to stupid people, we're screwed.
The real underlying problem is the collapse of the consensus of the elites, projected through corporate media. Murdoch saw a financial opportunity to break from this model, and social media companies followed with this as their only business model. Murdoch and Zuckerberg make money spreading magic which appeals to stupid people who vote in deranged morons. There is no effective feedback mechanism because not enough voters have the mental skills to evaluate the consequences of their actions. Or perhaps they just like seeing chaos and destruction. Rinse repeat.
The idea that anyone can know without a doubt what someone else needs is part of the problem.
People need to be treated as adults before they can be expected to act like adults. There's always the risk that goes wrong, it has in the past, but we're doomed if we believe the only way forward is a small group of elites forcing change on us because they "know best".
Political science has decades of research that consistently shows that it’s entirely correct to think that most voters have no clue about anything, including what would be best for them.
Reasoned, informed votes aren’t a major factor in elections.
[edit] see if your library has a copy of Democracy for Realists and also dig into older major works they cite, if you’re interested in more on this. For a quick gut-check, look up the proportion of US voters that understand how marginal income tax rates work, then reflect on the fact that this is something very simple that directly affects them in ways they must confront at least once per year, and despair at how bad similar measures must look for practically everything else and that if they don’t understand the basics of how things work, they can’t even begin to figure out “what’s best” for them or for anyone else.
I will see if I can find that book, thanks for the recommendation.
I'm not sure how we could untangle the issue of today's uneducated populace with our education system itself. If people don't understand marginal tac rates, for example, and most people go to public school because the government makes it pretty difficult to choose anything else, is it not the fault of public education for either not teaching it or teaching it poorly?
More importantly in my opinion, if people don't care to understand it that's fine - they can make that choice. If the system still works and no one complains, great. If it becomes a problem we can either better educate people on how it works or move to a more simply form of taxation that is easier for people to understand.
I’m not sure how much understanding the issues is a factor in democracy functioning well. I think it has more to do with widespread belief in democratic and rule-of-law identity, such that voters will reliably punish those who violate those tenets, and structures set up to resist the kind of rot that targets inherent weaknesses in democracy, especially to prevent capture of media and lobbying by rich minority interests. These reduce the effects of directed exploitation of voter ignorance, and block democratic attacks on democracy itself.
Both of those factors are, to use the scientific term, completely fucked in the US, which is why we’re where we are now. We’re not here because people think that we spend 20% of our budget on foreign aid, but rather, people think that because of concentration and capture of media ownership, and intense lobbying. The ignorance would be there either way, but the direction and form of it is carefully cultivated, and allowing that cultivation is the problem.
The generation of hard data demonstrating that voters (more or less) don’t know jack-shit about anything goes back to IIRC the 1950s, and the best answer Poli Sci has for why this results in a functioning system at all is that voter behavior is fairly erratic (much of it amounts to “do I perceive that things are bad, even that have nothing to do with the government or with me? Then throw the bums out!”) and (this was once accepted but is now controversial) that voter ignorance kinda balances out by virtue of being chaotic. If that ignorance becomes directed, however, both of these things are weaponizable or breakable.
Many of the founders of the US wrote about the importance of an educated populace and feared that an uneducated voting public would ruin the system.
What you describe are both results of an uneducated voting public in my opinion. At least as I see it, those are two important effects with the root cause being a lack of education and critical thinking.
If people were better educated on how our systems work and issues that impact them directly, and willing to think critically and listen to, or engage in, reasoned debates we wouldn't have to worry about what shit they may hear or see in the media, or from politicians, lobbyists, etc.
The solution at the time largely involved not letting groups unlikely to be educated… vote at all.
I’d definitely be interested in evidence that there are democracies with voters who are significantly better at understanding the function of their government, the breakdown of the budget, how basic functions of it work, et c, than in the US before, say, 1975.
I'm not totally sure whether you meant the 1975 point as a comparison of democracies today versus 1975 US, or democracies from 1975 compared to the US.
This is anecdotal since I don't have evidence handy, but I've been impressed with Swiss voters that I've met and they have all spoken highly of both their Democratic model and their voters. I don't know all the intricacies of it, but my understanding is that their system pushes any meaningful change to a vote. Its slower and requires more voter engagement, but at least from my experience that has succeeded in building a better informed public.
We should never expect people treated as children to act as anything more.
Acting like an adult requires practice and learning lessons when you mess up. Treating those you may disagree with, or don't trust, as children is a self fulfilling prophecy and strips them of the dignity of having the chance to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences.
Could you please implement Sander's socialist paradise in Vermont first? I'd really like to see how it works out before you try and subject the rest of us to your ideas. thanks!
It was literally in an official gov directive this week, to remove any requirements from government contractors that they not be segregated. so now a government contractors can be segregated if they desire.
This is such a wild con, especially looking at the whole thing from Europe. The Us has no significant political left, how on earth are they "behind everything" if they can't even manifest some influence within the Democratic party?
If the left was strong in the US there would have been a contest between Hillary Clinton and an actual left wing contender like Bernie Sanders. Even people like AOC would make a decent centrist candidate in Europe.
It’s just a boogeyman so we can swing this country into full blown fascism. Hitler did the same crap. It’s always somebody else’s fault, usually your friends and neighbors.
Nonsense, you have no idea how many conservatives are still mad the “leftists” forced the baker to make a custom cake endorsing gay marriage against his beliefs. (Not sell an off the shelf one, he was okay with that, a customized cake.)
That’s the kind of persecution they are talking, and angry, about. If that incident had not happened, Trump may never have been elected.
Left/right is not nearly as useful a lens here as is authoritarian/democratic.
The real key to avoiding mass starvations is giving people economic freedom to grow their own food or at a minimum trade for it, as well as democratic means to remove rulers that will starve mass numbers of people.
> Eh, the right still has a lot of work to do if they want to catch up with the economic damage (and the sheer body count) perpetrated by leftists over the last century.
I'm curious to see this quantified. Mao was certainly terrible, but so was Hitler of course and so were the various famines imposed by British rule.
It's well-accepted that Stalin's various purges and famines killed several times more civilians than Hitler managed to, for instance.
Here in the US, I'm personally more concerned about a replay of Pol Pot's regime. He took Hitler's warped notions of anti-intellectualism ("Jewish physics") to a whole new level ("Kill anybody wearing glasses.")
The fact that he did so under the standard of leftism doesn't really seem that meaningful or relevant, because if/when it happens here, it will evidently be perpetrated by the extreme right. A pox on both their houses.
I completely distrust and generally regard leftists with contempt due to my personal interactions with them alone. I regard them as societal cancer and would prefer any other group to be in charge over them. No McCarthyist propaganda needed. I'll take a fascist's boot on my neck any day over a lefty who pretends to do it for my own good.
the saddest part about a comment you are commenting on is that their mind has been so polluted that they only see the world through the views of two arbitrary political parties (who shift their own views every couple of decades, hard rightist from few decades ago is basically same-ish person as far-leftist today). all empires fall and USA is slowly getting there (now going “little” faster) because of thinking like this in part.
Regardless of how McCarthyism is antagonized under post Cold War era, it is not at all clear to me that such crackdowns wouldn't have been essential in ensuring the culture war is not lost to the Soviet Union.
How about you check out the rest of the western world, where each single democracy had their own pickings with communist tendecies. And most of them handled that in the common sense way of giving workers basic protections and ensuring their share of wealth so they don't feel the need to go to the communists.
Worked pretty well for most European countries.
Although, once communism was gone, the ideology of neolibral economic thinking took over and thus all benefits to workers were seen as unnecessary expenses. Leading to the current rise in nationalism and fascism nearly everywhere.
It is pretty simple: If you want all people to carry a system, all people need to feel like they profit from its existence. Once the mask slips and people realize they aren't profiting, they will be unwilling to hold up their side of the social contract. This is what is happening right now.
Has it though? It appears most of Europe is by and large a failed state collapsing under such communist-adjacent policies plus unbounded immigration. I would not want to be Europe today, so yeah, to the extent McCarthyism has been a protection against that, kudos.
Yes, two of my siblings are European citizens. It's staggering how much richer US feels. Many Europeans are fed daily propaganda and thus are in denial/ideological hatred. I implore Europeans especially the ones in technology to skip over anti-capitalist and anti-American propaganda widespread in Europe (e.g. you'll hear shootings every day; you'll be BK and die on the street if you get cancer) and seriously explore opportunities in the US. They can be multiple times wealthier, not just some measly percentages.
This is the classic american take, look at how much more money you could have.
To most europeans there are more important things than money, especially those working in tech who likely earn enough to have a great quality of life. Also lots of them have been to the US and made their own minds up.
Yes most of the population does not enjoy that benefit. I understand you only care for yourself, so yes please enjoy the current system that benefits you. Maybe we can a country just for you and send you there.
I think the meta is studying history, and wondering if any slide toward facism has ever been successfully stopped in its tracks without being beaten down in wars.
The two sort-of examples in Western history I can think of are Spain after Franco, and the UK in the 1930s. In Spain a monarch's left-shift was perhaps the deciding and surprising variable, and in the UK it was a powerful civil rights movement.
The US has neither, so I don't know what to expect. The two-party system also makes it very hard to bootstrap meaningful change, since both parties tend to try and chase the Overton window, but only one is really pushing to move it right now.
In Spain one of the deciding factors was the prime canditate for succeeding Franco as a dictator being blown up by Basque terrorists. Also, you should consider the Carnation Revolution in Portugal as another example.
The regime collapsed when the Portuguese colonial war in Africa consumed up to 40 percent of the national budget, and a new generation of university-educated military officials began spreading through the armed forces.
Portugal endured a dictatorial regime for almost 42 years, one of the longest in modern Europe, which was tolerated by NATO due to its anti-communist stance. [1],[2]
Interestingly enough, Russia is currently spending more than 40% of its budget on the war. [3]
A far more effective strategy to force them out of Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation. Instead, the West tolerated hundreds of businesses continuing to operate in Russia.[4]
The most likely explanation for agent Krasnov’s, (currently occupying the White House), sense of urgency to halt the war in Ukraine, and use it as a pretext to restart economic ties with Russia is the impending collapse of the Russian economy.[5]
If the USA were to leverage its real and soft power by issuing executive orders that refuse to allow any company to do business with Russia. And by threatening sanctions on India and China for enabling the Russian economy, it would force India and China to choose between access to the US market and economic prosperity, or support for Putin. The war would cease, employing the same tactics Reagan used to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
Instead, the US administration chose to betray the entire West, by yielding to Russian demands.
Re: economic sanctions against Russia. In 2019 Russia main exports went to EU and China and Belarus, while main import a were from US EU and China [0]. It will be crucial for EU to keep their sanctions or maybe even tighten them. Even if US stops their sanctions Russia will mostly buy technology from the US (for drilling). This will not solve Russia’s problem re:lower revenues.
I am very curious if EU is smart enough to keep and even tighten their sanctions. After all is European security that is threatened by Russia.
>A far more effective strategy to force them out of Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation.
It doesn't seems like that. The West was pretty intolerant to business connections with Russia, and if instead of 80% cut there was 100% cut - it doesn't change the overall picture very much.
>by threatening sanctions on India and China
If We look at the trade balance of Western countries and China - the West isn't close to the position to do that.
>use it as a pretext to restart economic ties with Russia is the impending collapse of the Russian economy
>yielding to Russian demands.
That's a blatant conspiracy theory. It seems like the main obstacle in the Trump's "peace deal" is that Putin is thinking that he is winning this war and that the Russian economy has way more time than the Ukrainian army will be able to conscript new soldiers.
>employing the same tactics Reagan used to bankrupt the Soviet Union
Soviet Union collapsed because of it's own complete left economy, because oil prices were several times lower than now (even adjusted for inflation) and because Gorbachev thought that it is better for him to advertise pizza, then to be the Supreme Ruler of those piece of sh.t of a country.
But here is the problem...The West is still sending, and this incredible
after 3 years of the Ukraine war, more than 200 to 300 billion a year to Russia!
The Russia military budget is 100 Billion! Their GDP is smaller than Italy.
There is no political will. Sadly, and on this Trump is correct,
the pathetic EU sent as much money to Ukraine as the amount of money
they sent to Russia in oil purchases:
Yes. A colonial war in three countries simultaneously, 2,000 miles from the nation.
Yet it still took 13 years, combined with the regime’s economic collapse and a shift in the educational background of the Armed Forces hierarchy to spark the revolution.
The US most likely will be in a civil war in eight to six months.... A cut in social security benefits will do it...
Not at all, the reason the current administration is acting so cruelly is to bring people to despair. And desperate people do desperate things. A violent action will be used as excuse to deploy US armed forces against US citizens.
Poland is still in the midst of a constitutional crisis caused by the Law and Justice party's attempts to subvert the country's constitutional court. It's only with the formation of Donald Tusk's government in 2023 that Poland has come back from the brink.
>I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
Most leftist political parties in Scandinavia and the Baltics manages to be be both pro-Palestine, pro-NATO, and pro-Ukraine. They don't seen any contradiction because there aren't any.
Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist neo-Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn down before you can get free healthcare and free college?
3rd wolrdism also exists in Europe. I'm pretty sure it's far more popular.
The reason why they feel overrepresented in the US is simply because a real, progressive leftist political project is essentially impossible, so the most extreme of the extremes are proportional more audible.
> Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist neo-Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn down before you can get free healthcare and free college?
Let's be fair, you said "some". We also have some of those in Europe.
But to answer, with a guess: perhaps the difference is that in European countries there are way more political parties. But I'm not an expert on American politics so feel free to say this is BS.
Probably because 2/3 of the population can't be reached. They either want to do whatever they can to be anti-left, even if it hurts themselves, or they don't care at all. So voting harder isn't going to work. All while education is being gutted. I honestly don't know what other options are left. Maybe turning states into their own countries and let them raw dog the world without any help from the federal govt. Idk, it's bleak.
It's quite frustrating, but it's clear propaganda spread. There's a complete vacuum of media for leftists in the US, and a tiny amount of money goes a long ways to cementing desired propaganda. Seeing the entire left in the US turn on Ukraine calling them Nazis, when in fact they were occupied by Nazis, with all the terrors that entails, and were planned to have half their population killed and the other half enslaved to Nazis, well, it's red pilling. The left in the US is so weak and leaderless that it is easily co-opted to any sort of end.
It’s being dismantled by an immigrant from South Africa with a dude who’s grandparents immigrated about 100 years ago from Germany who has an immigrant wife.
That's what the "would be" indicates directly in front of the part you quoted. And in reference to your comment below, I am definitely not referencing Obama, that doesn't even make sense because he did not dismantle American Empire in his two terms, in addition to not really being a leftist at all.
English is ambiguous. Your statement can be interpreted as "I thought the guy we elected (a specific individual to whom I refer coyly, not by name) would destroy everything" or "I thought it would take electing a certain type of person to destroy everything".
I assume he was trying to allude to Obama, which at least in the recent decades came the closest to that in terms of media image, but the claim that there has been an anti-imperialist president of the US (on any relevant timescale) doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
> leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
This is precisely how half of the US media characterized Barack Obama, who pioneered an even more impersonal style of American imperialism with drone warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
Obama is responsible for advancing the power of the presidency pushing further the limits with executive orders to make law. When met with the uselessness and obstructionism of Congress, both parties elected officials choose authoritarianism. When faced with disagreement, both party's voters advocate for authoritarianism. If the opposition doesn't agree, we'll use the government to force them.
It is, in my own opinion, a common fallacy to attribute the outcome as a direct consequence of the associated ideology, when more often than not the ideology is at best a post-hoc rationalization. Material decisions and their natural consequences are far more consistently impactful than any abstract justification for them.
The system is eroded by the people who were brought into the position of being capable to destroy the system: by the system!. In so far: "The purpose of a system is what it does" (Stafford Beer). This should motivate us to ask what properties of the system lead to this and how we might change it.
To me it seems to be a bit like what the Böckenförde-Diktum points to, which is: "The liberal secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself."
Basically the modern capitalist secularized society is so void of deep human values and only emphasizing legality and profitability that it brings out a certain kind of elite. An elite which is decoupled from all real human connection and value leading to a thinking like this: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/elon-musk-rogan-...
Well and now we have to cope with this. But until we understand that these elites are no accident but logical results of the system we foster, nothing will really change. Or better: until we accept that the reductionist approach to human society and value that this system is based on is flawed and act accordingly everything we do is basically just flex-taping it and waiting for the next escalation.
I need to give a name to my theory which posits that horseshoe theory is a bullshit right-wing talking point, no different from the classic villain trope "We are not so different, you and I", where one side admits to being awful but uses false analogies to try and paint the other with the same brush, and the other rejects both the comparison and the conclusion.
The underlying goal of horseshoe theory is not to create a meaningful comparison between two positions, but an underhanded attempt to demoralise those on the left, and to swing undecided centrists by convincing them that the left isn't really offering the progress that it claims. I think it's also used as a shield by people who are right-leaning but don't want to admit it out loud.
...unless you can find a single good example of a notable left-wing proponent suggesting that horseshoe theory is valid, actually.
This and 1000 times this. It is so absurd: of course it seems ad hoc plausible to treat roughly similar things as if they were the same. However: never do this in this forum, since this is a community is looking a lot into all kinds details, so you will get called out.
But somehow – SOMEHOW – the same people that ask for nuance in everything act as if it would be even remotely plausible that the two most polar opposites of political theory would be basically the same for all important intents and purposes if thought to an end.
It is simply mind-blowing. People looking at something, seeing it is complex, stopping their thinking and just somehow feeling their way to the most empty assessment ever: "probably the same consequencesif you think it to the end". Without even having begun to think their way through it!
But I get it: thinking is nice as long as it is a purely intellectual endeavor but not if any personal moral responsibility is concerned. You might be morally obligated to draw consequences in your behavior – Heaven Forbid!
Trump's actions towards the EU has resulted in a massive increase in military spending by those nations. This is exactly what Trump has demanded of them. This is consequential to Russia and in no way good for them. To think Trump is "controlled by Russia" is such a tired, worn out farce.
The only path to believing this is to accept Trump communications exclusively.
The entire Trump ecosystem is now prohibited from saying that Russia invaded Ukraine. Reality plays no role in any of these narratives.
Trump may or may not be a literal Russian agent. But his actions are indistinguishable from one. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, I'm equally tired of seeing it.
I'm not sure if you saw my parent comment which circumstantially refutes your assertion that Trump's actions are indistinguishable from that of a Russian agent. I don't think someone courting the Russian interest would encourage the armorment of it's neighboring continent.
> Trump's actions towards the EU has resulted in a massive increase in military spending by those nations. This is exactly what Trump has demanded of them. This is consequential to Russia and in no way good for them. To think Trump is "controlled by Russia" is such a tired, worn out farce.
The idea that the empire has a burden to civilize the world is a common theme in empires throughout history.
It's part honest desire to do something good with the position history has afforded the empire, and part self-serving rationalization, depending on who is doing the talking.
I'm the most cynical person I know, and somehow I spent 38 years thinking the US would always be on top, and despite the smaller scale invasions and the odd assassination, would maintain world peace and fund prosperity for all in terms of fundamental research.
I knew that democracy was fragile and that losing it could happen to all of us - except the US. somehow I believed their separation of powers would always work, that the pretence of freedoms would always be in the interest of Western oligarchs.
it does occur to me that maybe they think robot soldiers will soon be able to keep them safe from the revolution, but honestly, they're probably just greedy and reckless.
Calling Republicans jealous and afraid is a good way to make yourself feel better but very much misses the character of what's happening. The "I'm a superior son of a bitch" attitude of leftists is gross. Saying "they're just jealous" is something you tell children.
What you're saying here is "we're better than everyone else and everyone else disagrees with my positions because they envy how awesome we are".
Can you please explain the character of what's happening in a way that isn't demeaning to anyone? It's hard for me to view these events while inside without assigning blame.
Democrats have a real problem with saying true but demeaning things that you have to discuss when coming up with strategy, out loud in public.
Hillary’s “deplorables” thing was maybe the most prominent example. Her point was that democrats who think that all republicans are committed to evil positions we can’t compromise with or entertain isn’t correct! Only about a third of them are, according to the data. The rest could maybe be reached or worked-with!
This is true shit you say in blunt terms in a strategy meeting or nerdy discussion groups, not in public, because poli sci is just full of demeaning stuff about voters, because they are stupid and often evil and if you study democracy soberly that’s what you’ll find, and you have to grapple with it to act effectively, but you don’t say it in public because most voters also don’t know that stuff because they’re not poli sci nerds. She, and/or her speech writers, had been around strategists and wonks too much.
[edit] on the other hand, one wonders how much this really matters when Trump wins while saying worse things about all kinds of folks. The way the media approach and characterize and amplify (or don’t) the messages may matter more than what’s actually said.
I find complaining about basked of deplorables coming from the conservative side to be the height of hypocrisy. The same people compete with each other who will be more insulting.
They voted for Trump, twice. They love it when politicians are insulting.
Trumpers are utterly immune to declarations of hypocrisy, as people who refuse to engage in good faith often are. There's basically no point in calling it out.
Oh please. Between "libtards" and "snowflakes" and general condescension and insults comming from the the right for years and years, it is getting really tiring when the same people suddenly become thin skinned.
For years we have been listening "fuck your feelings" coming from the right.
"Fuck Your Feelings" was strongly and rapidly adopted as a slogan by Trump campaigners in 2019. Prior to that it wasn't strongly used in a political context, instead used nonpartisanly as disparagement of ones opinions in general. It didn't come "from the left".
It always ends up happening how you least expect it, though maybe that expectation is evidence that it was bound to happen via a different road anyway.
At the end of the day, the problem isn't really Trump. The American Empire isn't going to end because its only exporting $300B of military might to the world instead of $600B, when no one else on the planet is scratching $50B (I made these numbers up as an illustration).
It might end because it seems like the media landscape has entirely striated the US population into two groups: One group who genuinely and deeply believes that these actions are necessary for the continuity of the US way of life, and another group who genuinely and deeply believes that these actions will destroy the US way of life. No one makes any good faith effort to understand the other side; even my suggestion that this division is the real threat will get downvoted by HackerNews' overwhelmingly leftist bubble. American political discourse is now dominated by people who cannot allow even a single imperfection in their coat of armor, Trump cannot possibly be wrong about anything, his supporters cannot admit they might not have known the implications of what they voted for, the left cannot possibly be wrong about any of their criticism of him, we're screaming past each other.
Interrogate your inner thought process right now; were you thinking "What side is this person on?"
Its so difficult to get the full picture of understanding of the other side. Trump is rich, egotistical, and doesn't listen to the counsel of others; but Russia is controlling him? Trump wants to reduce the federal debt levels of the United States; but is hellbent on spending anything to deport economically productive illegal immigrants? Trump is silencing the media and kicking them out of the white house; while streaming more than Pokimane, direct from the Oval Office, just rambling for hours a day? Trump supporters were hoodwinked and lied to; yet more than any President america has had for decades, Trump is doing exactly, to the letter, what he said he'd do on the campaign trail; its just that the left didn't believe him back then, because we're so used to Presidents that do nothing. America's children have the worst test scores in the G20, and cost the most to educate; we should continue what we're currently doing? America's healthcare outcomes are among the worst in the G20, and most expensive; we should continue the path we're currently walking?
We're in a crisis of understanding right now. We need more moderates. We need people who understand both sides of the coin, and can have a reasonable conversation about why the past 20 years hasn't worked for most Americans, and also why Trump's policies also won't fix things. My fear, however, is that we won't get that in 2028; instead we're just going to move into our camps further, with a leftist version of Trump v JD Vance, and we'll dig further down the hole of two sides that need each other to solve the problems we face, but refuse to work with one-another.
> No one makes any good faith effort to understand the other side
I do and have.
Too many of their issues are simply made-up for me to get much traction, though. You see one outrageous thing after another and go “omg if that’s true it does seem pretty bad!” and then it’s almost always not true when you look into it. You can do this all day long with Fox News, let alone even nuttier sources.
That’s fine if Trump wants to spend less or even withdraw from NATO.
Doing it like it just did with basically no notice is a stabbing in the back to former allies of the US. And Republicans are also not saying much.
That behavior should and very likely will not be forgotten by Europe.
The next phase that makes sense is an iron curtain between 4 blocks (US, Europe, Russia, China). Like during the Cold War, it is the approach that will minimize the risk of war.
I wonder if part of the problem is that we abdicated our information intake to online sources, which for whatever reasons end up driving the divisions (engagement optimization, ads, money interests, etc.).
Where information input before the Internet might have been: 20% newspapers, 50% face-to-face (at the bar, church, work), 10% radio, 20% TV, now it's more like 80% Internet, 10% TV, 10% face-to-face. And it seems to make it a lot easier to grow hateful without the human element.
Trump does not want to reduce US debt level- Trump wants a tax cut. If government spending decreases as a result of DOGE that will not result in lower debt- it will result in a bigger tax cut.
The savings from DOGE ( if there will be any) will pass on to rich people, not to the average American voter.
No one on the left is surprised by what Trump is doing. The people who are surprised are his voters.
"I thought he was going to hurt those other people, not me."
Well. About that.
The problem isn't even left vs right. It's a media system that has parted company with reality and deliberately promoted lies and rage bait for clicks and distraction.
It's a huge machine. It's not just Fox, it's the entire network of neoliberal, now neofascist media outlets - from think tanks and "serious journalists", to bot farms and weaponised social media that promotes selected views and deboosts others, to podcasts, influencers, megachurches, mainstream econ schools, MBAs, startups... all promoting the same dysfunctional reality-denying neoliberal supremacist views under various guises.
It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow decline.
They even say this - Rubio said that we do not live in a unipolar world any more - a comment which attracted weirdly little notice.
Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world which did not exist. That's why the Ukraine war, from the American imperialist perspective, backfired.
The achilles heel of the American empire was, ironically, always profit and greed. If there is one thing that could be used to persuade America to let its industry rot it is profit and its industrial malaise is largely responsible for the ever-more-obvious decline in hard military power.
USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color revolution are over.
The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail it backfired.
No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
Because they went in to protect their own interests in the world after the world war 2. They dropped 2 nukes on Japan, remained in the country, and now they want money. Crazy people.
Incorrect. He tried to box in China and contain it as a solely regional power by building military bases along the first island chain and flipping countries into the US sphere of influence.
If China started doing something similar in North America the US would probably invade that country almost instantly (e.g. like it almost did to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis).
I assume they meant that the Biden administration's approach backfired because instead of isolating Russia on the world stage it strengthened its ties with other countries and China in particular.
Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin apologist.
Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
The NATO Expansion line has been disproven to death.
Putin sees the fall of the USSR as a historical wrong that must be righted. He uses NATO Expansion as an easy excuse to sell to the rubes, but it's just that, an excuse.
He was going to go after Ukraine and Georgia NATO or not.
It hasnt been disproven even once. The usual attempts to do so deny geopolitical realities (e.g. assuming the Finland-Russia border is as vulnerable as the Ukraine border).
Georgia was, obviously, left alone after it dropped its NATO ambitions, disproving the rather quaint theory that Putin is intent on reforming the USSR.
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
Even person who panders to Putin repeat bullshit Russian propaganda? How surprising. The NATO expansion excuse is just ignorant talking point. Russian imperialism is the very reason why every neighbour of Russia (apart from the ones that are it's puppet states) want to be in NATO, not the other way around.
According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating security policy to a population double its own. You may choose to believe that you can count on one hand the number of countries in the world with genuine sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other countries will beg to differ.
Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure why anyone would think of this as novel.
>Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits
Obviously American left coast DNC die hards and neoliberals hate him with a passion that beggars belief but he's basically still a different face of American imperialism repesenting similar goals with a changed strategy. Patching things up with Russia is part of that.
The conspiracy theory that he's a Russian plant is amusing, but a delusion to which even the most die hard Putin supporter cannot reach. I guess it's easier to admit than the idea that America lost.
Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join voluntarily in a fractious security environment.
It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
EVEN Donald Trump? As if minihands is the staunchest critic of Russia? I mean, c’mon. Pretty much _only_ Donald Trump claims this outside the context of actual Russian propaganda.
It’s a terribly flimsy argument. Like, no-one has ever, as far as I know, said that Poland should invade Belarus because it joined the CSTO, say. Because that would be obviously ridiculous; actually joining, never mind wanting to join, a defensive treaty organisation is no sort of excuse for invasion. None of this makes any sense unless you accept to start with that Russia has some sort of rights over Ukraine, and no-one really buys that except for Russia.
"Even" Donald Trump? The man who many accuse of being a Russian asset and having more sympathy for Putin than for decade-long allies? That Donald Trump?
Comparing 90s Russia to 2025 Russia is naive at best. Not even Clinton at his Bill-Clintonest would think of normalizing with Putin's Russia in 2025 had his presidency time-travelled to today.
This is before we look at the cost of "normalizing" relations with Russia, if we assume that's what Trump is doing. Turning back to allies, ripping up treaties and trade deals, threatening annexation, knee-capping your own Military-industrial complex, the list goes on. That's nothing like liberals in the 90s.
Yes, I’m referring specifically to the anti-imperialist angle.
There were lots of factions within the anti-imperialist left, but fundamentally there was a distrust of “foreign-policy experts.” And while Trump isn’t a pacifist (and I’m far from one) that’s the part that he really gets.
The anti-imperialist angle is the same as pro-Ukraine, and opposing Russian imperialism.
It's easy to confuse anti-imperialism with pacifism, but you have to remember the anti-imperialist supported anti-colonial warfare even back in the 80s and 90s. Supporting a war to resist imperialism is completely congruent with anti-imperialism, and explains support for Ukraine.
There's some truth to this, but the bigger issue is that we've been paying A LOT in taxes for A LONG time and because larger and larger portions of that are going to pensions, people are starting to second guess every expense.
The good news - form my perspective - is that the GROWTH in the percentage of the workforce living off pensions is slowing dramatically and is now under REAL growth, which means working folks might feel like life is getting better again.
The reason people have complained that life hasn't gotten better for workers over the last 20 years is because nearly all growth has gone to more people being retired and the 0.1%.
If you keep the same growth, but the number of people retiring slows, there's a little more wiggle room with the pie.
I moved from Australia to the USA (be careful who you swipe on dating apps) and went from paying 50% tax to 15% tax for basically the same job with basically the same quality of life. Tax in America is outrageously low which is no doubt why it cant balance its budget (though I approve of cutting government spending aswell).
Counterpoint: I’m in the US and my effective income tax rate is in the mid-40s, with my marginal rate over 50%. And I’m not in one of the few states with the highest state income taxes.
The highest federal bracket is 37%, the highest state bracket in the US is California at 13.3%, Medicare at 2.9% if you're self employed, NIIT caps out at 3.8% - so even earning well into seven plus figures, with punitive NIIT, only puts you at a max of 47% marginal. Social security taxes stop long before the brackets kick in.
NYC has combined local and state top marginal rates of 14.776%, to go up to 48.476%.
I call BS on marginal rates exceeding 50%
Edit: even the new 2024 California payroll tax cap lift and mental health tax on seven figure incomes put it at 49.1%. Marginal rates that high don't exist in the US. Even then that requires paying payroll taxes and NIIT on the same income, which I'm pretty sure is impossible.
A single W-2 earner making $1 million has a 33.49% effective federal tax rate (OASDI, Medicare, Income) taking only the standard deductible and doing nothing else to lower their taxable income (no tax advantaged accounts, not spending enough in categories that allow itemization, etc.). A single non-W-2 earner (has to pay the employer part of payroll taxes) has an effective rate of 34.84%.
If they're married the rates are 29.62% (W-2) and 30.97% (non-W-2), under the same assumption that they do not do anything to qualify for either reduced taxable income or any kind of rebate or credit.
Most people don't make $1 million, and those that do have ways to reduce their tax burden quite a bit without much trouble.
EDIT: Small modifications to the numbers above, they were off by about 0.4% to 0.5%.
Social security is 6.2% and is capped (you only pay social security taxes on a max income of $168,600). So if your income is 168,600 you pay $10,453 in social security taxes.
And if your income is $1,000,000 you still only pay $10,453 in social security tax.
$176,100 this year, and you should also include Medicare which is 1.45% and has the same cap. That does mean a base 7.65% federal tax rate for most W-2 earners. But when you work out the math on the effective tax rates for income tax (not payroll) it takes a lot to hit 25% as your effective federal income tax rate.
Around $350,000 gets you to a 24.8% effective federal income tax rate if you're single and only take the standard deductible, $700k if married. That puts you in the top 3% and 1%, respectively, of incomes in the US these days.
But that gets reduced when you include things like tax advantaged retirement accounts, various tax credits, dependents, paying for health insurance, possibly being able to itemize (more likely at those incomes than the US median income). So really you have to be making something like $400k-500 as a single person to hit 25%, and $800k+ for a married person.
What is your bill when an ambulance brings you in? When you have a legal problem at your workplace? What will be your pension? How is the mass transit system? What do you pay for child care, how is your school, how safe is your neighborhood, how do the number of murders in your area compare?
In US, employer pays their share of social security + medicare taxes, which is about 7.6%. If you are self-employed, you need to pay both the employee and the employer side (about 15.2% taxes, mandatory).
When we briefly had a balanced budget (kinda, if you squint just the right way) we had 1990s tax levels and a major economic boom.
We’ve since had two major rounds of tax cuts by republicans, so a balanced budget isn’t feasible even in booms and when we’re not deficit spending on two stupid wars. And now we’ve got all the interest on the debt from those tax cuts and wars to worry about.
If only anyone could have predicted this. Oh wait, everyone who knew anything about taxation policy did.
How do I know? Because my parents earning ~1000 USD per month each living in Poland have higher standard of living than most Americans. Despite paying ~30% taxes.
You have to add up what the taxes pay for in the calculation. Free healthcare, free university education, good public transport, low inequality (= low crime). All of that adds up to higher standard of living achievable with pretty shitty earnings.
Oh and before you blame it on military spending - we spend higher% of GDP on military than USA. Russia is a shitty neighbor, we have to.
American problems are exactly the opposite of what Americans think they are. You are in dire need of some social democracy.
> Free healthcare, free university education, good public transport, low inequality
And I think these are all difficult things to do well and make money, as in doing a good job in healthcare, education, etc. is not really profitable. So, they are areas for government involvement.
Lack of civic pride and a lack of belief in even the possibility of effective government means that the US -- and many countries like it have a) ineffective civil service and b) ineffective government.
That's an interesting perspective, that could be used as an argument by both camps. You say more social democracy, someone else might say, more social cohesion due to shared cultural background and low immigration.
Social democracy is orthogonal to immigration policy.
You can have welfare state with close or open borders and anything in between, and you can have libertarian state with close or open borders.
For the last few years most EU countries have been going towards pretty strict immigration policy but not towards libertarianism.
Also Poland is not a good example (it's been accepting A LOT of immigration since ~2014 - more than average in EU). But that argument gets pretty detailed very quickly so unless you want to go into it - I'll leave that alone).
The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more.
Take a step back and consider how hardened the divide is between “the two sides”. It should have never come that far, how are you gonna keep national unity in a situation like that!? Are there other first world countries that are that divided?
The US voting system is probably fairly unhelpful, here. Most democratic countries have _multiple_ sides, and need to form coalitions; compromise is, of necessity, more of a thing. For instance, the next government in Germany will likely be a centre-right/centre-left coalition.
To add: Beyond the need for compromise, a multi-party democracy also provides a safety valve; if a fringe element of a major party grows _too_ fringe, it will often just break off (in the last 20 years Ireland has had _two_ new minor parties emerge from an anti-abortion/anti-LGBT fringe breaking with a major party, say). In two party systems, you instead tend to get ‘big tent’ parties, with the fringe elements on the inside, and sometimes one of the fringe element takes over. For instance, see the US Republicans with Trumpism, the UK Conservatives with Brexiteers (and later an attempted, though largely failed, takeover by Truss’s lot, and, er, whatever the hell they’re doing now, who even knows anymore), and arguably UK Labour with Corbyn’s faction (again, this didn’t really last).
(The UK’s a bit of an oddity here in that it’s _kind_ of a multiparty state for historical reasons, but doesn’t really have the right type of electoral system to support a multiparty system.)
It's the root of the problem imo. However, with the majority of the population on a middle school reading comprehension level, it's impossible to explain.
Disenfranchised, easily manipulated voters that want to tear down the system on one side, and people whose convictions are still somewhat based in reality on the other.
That would not be a split in halves, by any means, though. East Germany accounts for about 15% of the population, last I looked. Also, the far-right AfD got about 20% of the votes in the recent election. That is also not a split in halves.
Why squabble at semantics here fixating on exactly half? 1/5th of modern Germany voting for the modern incarnation of the nazi party is a disgrace and speaks to the propaganda situation their population faces.
You can see for yourself: https://bundeswahlleiterin.de/bundestagswahlen/2025/ergebnis...
This shows the winners of the "second vote."
Dark blue = CSU (conservative party), its outlines are identical to Bavaria because this party only runs there and, this time around, won 100% of the second votes.
Cyan = AfD, far right-wing party. Its outlines are nearly identical to the borders of the former GDR.
Gray = CDU, CSU's sister party, making up for most of the remainder.
Increasingly so most western countries are getting fractures by the Russian and Chinese propaganda apparatus. Ask any rural/working class western european these days and whatever rhetoric they are primed to regurgitate to you is not dissimilar to what you’d get from a similar american: people who aren’t white are destroying the country they claim, they claim they should be more insular and less tied to the global stage, and they are trusting charlatans who speak to these bigoted positions without ever actually reading their policy positions that solely benefit the oligarch class in that country.
You mean (almost) a quarter of the population--only 47% of Republicans actually support funding Ukraine less [1]. There are plenty on both sides that disapprove of the foreign policy decisions of the current administration.
I've seen these "people in party x categorically do y" comments a whole lot more recently, and it really feels like a net negative to political discourse. Based on the source I pointed to earlier, there seems to be a plurality of support for at least continuing aid to Ukraine, with only 30% believing we're sending too much. Us vs them mentality won't help people recognize and voice disapproval of decisions within their own party that they don't agree with; we need to concede that people may vote a candidate for a narrow set of reasons (thanks to the two-party system) and have political discourse that encourages disagreeing with certain of your own party's views.
That data is outdated. That support has eroded since then, and will continue to erode now that Trump has stopped equivocating (lying) about his position on Ukraine.
Hate to break it to you, but people in the GOP will support anything Trump tells them to. The right wing political ecosystem is a closed system and it’s driven from the top down, and they’ll believe anything they’re told, so long as the entire ecosystem is reinforcing it. They spent 60 years building this system; it works really well now. And it’s the reason the country is now being dismantled, and the reason there’s nothing anyone can do about it. This system was the cracks in the foundation and Trump was the nitroglycerin.
There is nothing like this on the Democratic side of the fence. There’s no centralization of opinion, and there’s no media ecosystem whatsoever. The so-called “mainstream media” is now all owned by right-wing or at best center-right billionaires, so Democrats can’t actually push a message even if they could get it together, because they don’t have any microphones.
There were attempts at a Democratic media ecosystem, all of them sabotaged by centrists who didn’t want progressives to gain power. Because “better things aren’t possible” wasn’t a winning message and people on both sides of the political fence generally prefer progressive policies (until you associated them with the Democrats, then GOP support plunges.) But it would threaten people like Nancy Pelosi whose power and personal fortune derive from doing massive favors for defense contractors.
There is a huge centralization of opinion among democrats. They all made tiktoks last week reading from the same exact script. If anything they would hugely benefit from a diversity of opinion.
Most of politic seems to be about negotiating to keep a third of the population away from power. Because once they get in power they will trash almost anything in their path
There’s certainly no shortage of MAGA folk whose primary motivations are “owning the libs”. But I think there’s plenty of people who just truly believed in the nonsense Trump was selling.
No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans.
They're almost certainly wrong about the medicine, but their diagnosis isn't far off: globalization has not helped them as much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns.
Edit: Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
Saw an interesting article on zero-sum thinking as contingent on the idea that the pie stays fixed, thus ruling out the possibility of "lose a little now, but the pie grows overall so your share grows more to compensate" (the basis for friendly trade relations, basically).
What I realized was that, for people who've been "left out of the benefits of the global economy", that picture makes total sense--the pie didn't grow, and in fact probably shrank for them. Thus, zero-sum thinking makes perfect rational sense. It's an accurate worldview, and anyone trumpeting "the pie will grow, you just need to give up a little more (in increased taxes or jobs shipped elsewhere)" in spite of the evidence that IT HASN'T, must be either a fool or outright lying to them.
Anyways, for the first time I felt myself understanding a little bit how these voters may feel.
It's actually a bit worse than that, from their perspective. What if they see it as someone telling them "sure, the pie will shrink for you, but for me and mine it will grow and I'll get a bigger share of it and you should take one for the team so I can prosper"...
Who would go for that? If it were merely about the pie shrinking, maybe that's just inevitable, and reasonable people would have to concede that it must shrink. They feel as if there is an element of fraud in the proposals that are made. Rather than miscalculation, rather than misfortune.
Their pie shrunk, because they have nothing of value to offer. And instead of buckling down and figuring out how to provide value and making things better for themselves, they have decided to ruin everything for everyone (themselves included!) Coal mining is dying, and it isn’t coming back, not because of some liberal agenda, but because renewable energy is a better business model. Car manufacturing has been automated and/or shipped overseas, because no one wants pay a premium for a shitty car, just because it was made by Americans.
But, instead of focusing on spinning up solar panel production factories or cutting edge automation in automobile manufacturing or funding world class universities to reskill people in things the modern world needs, they’d rather double down on their protectionist agenda while blaming the liberals, despite it being 100% their own fault. Fucking over the liberals might make them feel smug, but the conservative position is worse, because now there isn’t the remote possibility that they can get government funding for all these “socialist agenda items”, never mind that it would actually help them.
I’m not saying you’re defending their position, but I am saying that they need to get over themselves, because that’s the only way things get better for them. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying things don’t suck for them. I’m sorry for them that life is hard, and things change. It would certainly be nice if we could just do the things we’re used to and like forever without needing to adapt. But shit changes, and being mean to trans people or whatever just isn’t going to make their lives better, it’s only going to make every one else’s worse too. We rely on each other. We have no choice not to. So instead of being antisocial, they need to grow up and join the rest of us in the society we’re trying to have.
And so… they vote for the cheaper goods and killing their towns more?
> the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time.
The Democratic platform has been around providing succour and training to rural areas for several election cycles, Clinton’s campaign included 30 billions in infrastructure, training, and redevelopment, as well as healthcare and pension safeguard for coal counties.
And how has that been working out for those communities? Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9 administrations. Wealth inequality is as high as ever during that time period. Whether it’s because their platform isn’t actually meant to benefit them, or because of incompetence by the party in implementing it, Democrats haven’t proven to be any better to them than Republicans.
Don't you see how that platform is more patronizing than "I'll bring the jobs back home"? It's far more appealing to hear that your jobs were taken by cheap Chinese labor than to hear that your skills are out of date and you need training.
It doesn't actually matter in this case who is right—as I said, they're wrong about the medicine—what matters is who understands the human beings who vote better. And Trump understood these people better than any member of the establishment in either party, which is why he was able to hijack one and defeat the other.
Inventing stories about how half the country just wants the other half to hurt won't help win the midterms and the next presidency. We have to get past that and actually look at what Trump voters truly believe, then speak to them as real people, not strawmen.
I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who is right. Because reality is a thing.
Being a leader means understanding the reality of a situation, developing a strategy, and understanding where people are so you can get them on board and all work together to improve things.
It does not mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power for yourself while making their situation even worse.
It does not mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power for yourself while making their situation even worse.
It does mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power to do whatever you wanted to do. Their prejudices are the real part of reality.
Before you can be a leader people have to follow you, and in democracies people have to vote for you. And the unfortunate reality is that reality doesn't matter for elections, only the perception of reality matters.
So if you want to be a leader, you have to start by understanding people and, yes, pandering to them. There's a reason why too many of our powerful politicians have been essentially indistinguishable from sociopaths.
Yes, the question is what end are they devoting their sociopathic skills toward? And isn’t it the most “patronizing” thing of all to believe that people are too stupid to see that when they vote?
So far Trump 2.0 has done exactly what he promised he would, and his supporters are quite happy. If his actions don't lead to the outcomes he promised that may change, as long as someone else who understands the needs can offer an alternative.
I think we did that experiment in November, and it doesn’t support your assertion that people suddenly turn into rational performance evaluators after the election (or in this case an entire first term).
In any case, this time around the likelihood is Trump will be long dead (of natural causes, I mean) before the impact of this election is realized. The change happening right now is generational in scale. The voters’ children will be reading this chapter in their history book and asking what on earth they were thinking.
> I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who is right. Because reality is a thing.
Is that a position you hold consistently? Is there anything you believe that you wouldn’t be swayed on when presented evidence to the contrary of your belief?
I ask, because there is an awful lot of mainstream Republican and (here’s the controversial bit) Democrat thought that simply has no basis in reality.
All humans do that. The question is, do you want elect someone who seems to be better at perceiving reality according to evidence than yourself, or worse?
Well, then you have to fall back on whether one of them is at least better at it than the other, and it’s hard to believe that would be a difficult decision at the moment.
Unless the election already has an obvious winner so your vote doesn’t matter, that’s just silly. Write an editorial if you’re unhappy with the choice, but don’t throw away your vote and just roll the dice as if you’re indifferent to the two alternatives. (And if you really were indifferent to the alternatives this time around, I don’t know what to say.)
"I'll bring the jobs back home" seems vastly more patronizing to me. That's just telling people they're stuck with their lot and shouldn't try to improve their situation because daddy GOP will take care of them.
The reality is most people are stuck with their lot, and that’s the point. These people understand the reality a lot better than the people making promises of retraining.
Again, it doesn't really matter if you like them or think they're mature in their attitudes and approach, they've now proven that you can't win elections without them. Figure out how to appeal to them or watch us descend into decades of Trumpism.
... but appealing to them would mean descending into decades of Trumpism, because that's what they want.
They don't want to be appealed to, nor do they intend to compromise. They want to tear down everything I value, burn it to the ground, piss on the ashes and put me up against the wall. I know this because they've told me precisely that, and have been telling me that for nearly a decade. They've been very vocal and clear about what they want, and it isn't to be understood, or to meet anyone halfway.
I'm tired of being told that I need to capitulate and surrender and understand why I deserve the bullet. Fuck that, and fuck them.
See, this is exactly why I felt the need to speak up. Trumpism isn't what they want, it's just the closest thing to what they want that's been offered. And if you let Trump be the only person who speaks to them for the next 10 years, you might actually find they they begin to believe that it is in fact the real thing.
The economic woes come first, and it's still not too late for a left-leaning populist to take charge of the Democrats and give the people what they need while protecting minorities and LGBT folks. The only way we get to the social justice disaster that people are predicting is if we all collectively throw up our hands and write off 50% of the voters as a lost cause.
The trouble with this argument is that if what they want is to keep the coal mines running, no one can give them that. If it’s a disqualifying event to tell them that fact and offer to help, then it seems like we’re on a dead-end road. The election goes to the people who lie about it to gain power and still do nothing about it, or make it worse.
E.g., the party who actually succeeded in doing something about health insurance just lost to the party who did everything in their power to stop it, and who immediately decided to decimate Medicaid when they took over. So you can give the people what they need and still get punished for it.
We've been hearing what they are asking for and what they are saying. The push back that Romney and McCain got from their own voters because they wouldn't attack Obama as a foreign Muslim. What will it take for people to believe that people who state "He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting" actually want to hurt people. We don't want the same things with different paths to get there. We have fundamentally different values.
I like how Trump is not what they want only when there is a need to deflect the blame. But when someone needs to deflect blame from Trump, then he is doing exactly what his voters want.
And somehow, when left and democrats are doing something bad, left and democrats are to be blamed. And when conservatives or right do something bad ... left and democrats are to be blamed.
> The economic woes come first
No they do not. Trump does not make economy better, you know it, they know it, I know it. It is not about removing fraud or corruption, Trump is fraudster and they know it, you know it and Trump himself knows it.
It was a stream of lies and hate that won and people voted for. It has nothing to do with economic policies that could help these people or not. Pretending to yourself that some rational policy can counteract it is how you loose.
>It's far more appealing to hear that your jobs were taken by cheap Chinese labor than to hear that your skills are out of date and you need training.
Training for what? What if our population of working age people is far larger than our economy's ability to absorb whatever sort of service worker you imagine they should be training to become? Given a fixed total population, there's only room for x masseuses or y graphic artists. If we have n unemployed people needing training, and that number is higher than x and y combined (for any sort of x and y), telling them to retrain doesn't solve their problem. Some are going to lose out. The truth of the matter is that by offshoring manufacturing, we created an economy where there is a surplus of ultimately unemployable people.
A message of training isn't just bullshit, it's transparent bullshit. Most people have an intuition that this is the case, after all. As for midterms, both the Republican and Democratic parties have a different strategy. They will simply import voters who will vote for them. H1Bs for the GOP, and the remainder of the naturalization pipeline for the Ds. It's slow, but they're willing to put in the longterm effort.
Training for construction and manufacturing jobs. A lot of HN users don't seem to realize this but the USA is re-industrializing at an accelerating rate as the globalized system breaks down. The electric grid is growing fast due to higher demand including generation, transmission, and storage. The chemicals and plastics industries are booming due to cheap natural gas from fracking. Ocean shipping routes are getting slower, more hazardous, and more expensive. China's labor cost advantage is eroding due to demographic collapse and horrendous central planning policies (the USA has its own challenges in those areas but overall we're in better shape).
What you say meshes with my understanding. The crux is how do we even pull up from this? It has essentially been the Republican playbook for the past few decades - the politicians enact backdoored policies that make things even worse, while personally looting and maintaining support with identity politics. Trump's main differences are the lack of usual political decorum, the level to which he's doing it, and how much his actions are openly benefiting foreign powers.
The tough nut to crack is that it is impossible to talk with red tribe voters about any of this! You can sit there and listen, of course. But as soon as you say anything that still addresses their frustration and pain, but yet diverges from their overly-simplistic party chorus, you're now part of the "other" that is eagerly responsible for their problems and will just be reflexively argued with.
And the situation has gotten so bad that lighter touch individual-freedom-respecting solutions (that they could possibly agree with in theory) aren't likely to even work now. For example twenty years ago, stopping the profligate government spending and handouts to banks could have stopped rural economies from continuing to get hollowed out. Allowing deflation in consumer goods would have allowed main street to experience some of the gains from offshoring. Re-setting the definition of full time employment to 40 hours per household per week would have slowed down the financial grindstone.
Instead these days we're basically down to direct government stimulus to create new jobs - directly at odds with the medicine they think they need. Or even worse, completely uninspiring answers like UBI.
What's QED exactly? The comment I'm replying to is saying that
> It doesn't actually matter in this case who is right
because the only thing that's important is whose claim is attractive to the population being pandered to, and that
> I'll bring the jobs back home
is amazing despite being completely nonsensical.
And the're probably right, mind. A lot of the responses seem to agree, just couching it in nicer terms (if barely). I guess putting it in plain terms is not acceptable. As is usually the case.
The Democratic platform has been particularly tone deaf and ineffective for rural areas dependent on resource extraction industries. Federal grants won't fix the fundamental economic problems. When Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden told unemployed coal miners to learn how to code that didn't go over very well.
> Federal grants won't fix the fundamental economic problems.
The economic problems are that once a location reliant on extractive industries gets too expensive (and / or gets automated leading to orders of magnitude cuts to the necessary workforce) it's not coming back, the companies either fold or leave. Europe has coal countries which folded a century ago. Once your coal is too far to be cheaply extractible, even if new tech made extracting it viable once again it almost certainly would not need anywhere near the same level of crewing. And reactivating an old mine is probably not worth the cost over upgrading mines which are still active.
So your only "fixes" are to flee the area or move to a new industry. And to do the latter, you need a way to kickstart the change. That's the goal of federal grants.
The recovery of extractive areas is difficult, and may not even be possible if too dependent. And it certainly does not happen by clinging to the extractive industry which left you behind.
I know I responded to you once already, but the other thing I wonder is if globalization is really the issue here. There's also an inherent productivity gap between densely and sparsely populated areas. Had industrial jobs not moved to China, they would have moved to the cities.
When people do build factories, which they still do, they build them in or around the cities, not in the country, despite having to pay more for land, labor, and regulatory compliance. If they do locate in the country, they choose a town that has a university and a hospital.
That's not really as true any more. The plastics and chemicals industry is growing rapidly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and those factories tend to be sited based on easy access to natural gas supplies rather than proximity to cities.
There are committed bigots in the Republican voter base. They’re suburban and rural-rich.
The rural poor Republican voters largely are, at least hypothetically (if you can get through their media bubbles) reachable by the right economic message. They’re not in it for the racism or what have you. That’s the suburban republicans.
>No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans.
But they haven't, they're just completely uninformed about what they're getting. If you think ANY of the rural farming communities could continue to exist without significant federal subsidies, you're crazy.
Ask a farmer whether globalization has helped him or not the next time China retaliates to a tarriff by refusing to import any US soybeans and you'll quickly discover that it has absolutely helped them.
Globalization is less the cause of their issue, it's deregulation. Consolidation of manufacturing has killed plants in those small towns. Consolidation of groceries[1] has made it impossible for small-town grocery stores to survive on their own. Both can be traced back to Reaganomics.
Are the Democrats at fault for not attempting to reverse any of that? Absolutely, but the answer isn't: we need someone who wants even more consolidation and to kill all international relations.
How big a role did race and religion play? I'm genuinely curious because the mainstream media won't talk about it, perhaps out of a sense of political correctness. But it seems odd that they're framing the election as a referendum on economics, when the Trump campaign didn't even float a coherent economic agenda.
As I mentioned in another thread, the Republicans switched from "the immigrants are stealing your jobs" to "the immigrants are stealing your cats."
It played a role in giving people an outlet to attach their anger to, the same as it did in 1930s Germany. But the economics came first and are still dominant in the majority of Trump voters I speak with. The vocal minority pushing the racism and anti-LGBT stuff are not representative.
It's like you and I are reading from the same book! - If I just go off what I see online, most of the loudest anti-trans voices, and most of the racists, I'm more or less convinced have never met or gotten to know any trans people or any black people. It's a certain amount of willful ignorance on their part.
Grew up in the midwest and still have a lot of ties there. You left out the absolutely gargantuan amount of right wing crazy propaganda that has all of them hating democrats and "The Left" and "socialists" to death. The most religious literally believe the Democrats are evil and want to destroy America. They've been harping on that for 40 years.
There are always some fraction of nutjobs in any coalition, but in my part of the Midwest that is a tiny fraction of the voters. Most are just tired of change and tired of feeling left behind. To the extent that they're riled up by that rhetoric it's because it gives them a place to put their economic frustrations.
In my experience, the average Trump voter is far more accepting than the average leftist, who will refuse to even engage with you if you think differently than they do.
This has not been my experience growing up in a rural America. Sure leftists might try to cancel you online.
But I got my face punched multiple times for not preforming masculinity in a way that they found acceptable or for standing up for someone smaller and weaker.
Though it's (a) smaller share of GDP compared to the 'good old days' of the 1950-60s, and (b) does not need as many workers because of automation. This is true in a lot of industries: various seaports have never imported/exports more goods, but have fewer dockworkers than decades ago because of containerization and giant cranes.
Though one problem is of 'concentrated loss': if a town/area was dependent on one factory (or industry), then it could be especially heavily hit because of that single point of failure.
That's a very very partial picture of it. There's a lot of hate about social change, people are terrified of trans people and that has been effectively turned into a culture war issue.
Also your economic story doesn't hold water. The Biden administration successfully placed tons of factories all over the country with tax incentives for clean energy, but those factories could never trumpet what they were doing because hate for Democrats and for Biden and for clean energy is stronger than any desire for jobs. Similarly the destruction of the CHIPS act and its unpopularity in rural areas also shows that the economic opportunity aspect is just an excuse for the cultural hate that has been worked up.
The best way to understand a Trump supporter that I have come to is a person that hates Democrats more than anything, and will do anything possible to bully them, including the economic destruction of the country. I have a lot of family like this, and for years I thought they were just joking or exaggerating about their hate, but the past year has shown me that they were earnest. It's not the 1990s anymore, this is a visceral culture war above all else.
For no reason. Trans people aren't doing anything but trying to live their lives but the concept of being trans disrupts their view of the world. People fear what they don't understand and because they don't understand the real reasons for their struggles, everything they don't understand can be conflated by a confident liar saying they are related.
Possibly the most succinct summary has been sitting in pop culture for a quarter century but how it could apply to real life never clicked with most people: "Fear is the path to the dark side"
> The Biden administration successfully placed tons of factories all over the country with tax incentives for clean energy, but those factories could never trumpet what they were doing because hate for Democrats and for Biden and for clean energy is stronger than any desire for jobs
Nothing has changed here. It's doesn't matter what they've claimed they're doing, there are still no jobs here and working class Americans feel abandoned.
The vast majority of Trump voters around here voted for him because of the economy. The trans stuff was seen as evidence that the Democrats were so wrapped up in first world problems held by a tiny minority that they didn't even notice that the majority of the country was actively struggling to make ends meet. It's not about the trans people, it's about the narrative that Trump shaped about how that related to these people's economic lives.
IMO - the trans stuff feels like a moral panic, like on the same level as the Satanic Panic of the 80's - or the violence in video games panic, or any number of other things - I'm just waiting for the storm to blow over.
All of this is made much worse by social media too, which fans the flames hotter than it ever could have been before.
I'm not American, but the issue I saw time and time again from Americans getting interviewed by various news organizations was inflation, specifically food prices. So many people said that food was cheaper when Trump was president, so they want him and his food prices back. This is of course totally disregarding that the rest of the world also had massive inflation, and most of it comes from increased oil prices because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and governments printing money to use for Covid stimulus. The tariffs probably didn't help either, but I don't know how many of those Biden kept so I don't know if any side can be blamed there. I doubt all these new tariffs will help though.
I actually saw a couple people saying that they've received a check from Trump during Covid, and mentioned that as a clear reason to vote for him. I thought it sounded dumb when I saw that he insisted on having his name on the stimulus checks, but apparently it worked. I also saw some people, southern women and big city black men, saying that they definitely didn't want a female president. That was probably part of why Hillary lost, and making the same play this time wasn't very wise from the democrats, although I would probably blame Biden for not dropping out earlier and leaving them very little choice.
In the last 30 years, which other nominee for president by one of the two parties that matter has made addressing the struggles of working class America the center of their platform?
No, they're the byproduct of a failed educational system and culture of unearned entitlement. They expect others to save them from drug addiction while doing every possible to prevent help. And they only have this power because of the Senate represents land instead of people.
I applaud you for trying, but HN doesn't want reason or understanding w.r.t trump or his voters. Way easier to label everyone/everything as fascist nazis and stick your head in the sand.
Thanks. I know. I'm here every few weeks with a fresh attempt. It went over better before the inauguration, but now that Trump is actually implementing the policies that he campaigned on it's a bit harder for people to stomach the idea that his voters are anything other than orcs.
I'll probably give it a rest here for a few more weeks.
Nah, there are plenty of us here, we've just mostly gone underground in the face of the mindless hate and anger that's been dominant the last month or two. Echo chambers are self-reinforcing that way.
All my employees are Trump supporters and Trump got 75% of the vote in my county.
They want the 70s-80s economy back, but they don't want to support unions.
They think they deserve to receive government benefits. But others are moochers, and they don't deserve it.
They think Trump is deporting criminal / drug cartel illegal immigrants.
My state is red (State houses & governor have been conservatives for the last 30 years). Yet they blame all the issues on democrates. When my state signed the carry law, they thought Biden was the one who signed the law.
If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans, gays, and immigrants.
> If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans, gays, and immigrants.
You have to distinguish between the rhetoric being spread to hijack the economic woes and the actual root of the problem. All that stuff is designed to give people an outlet for their very real economic frustrations. It's not deep seated (yet), it's a tool to exploit them. The only reason why it's working is because these people have been ignored for too long by the establishment in both parties, and it's not too late to respond and adapt.
This is happening in other countries as well. It is often the internal periphery (former GDR, rural France etc., poorer parts of the EU) that votes for anti-system parties out of bitterness.
The liberal elites are paying for their inability to keep the societal compact somewhat alive. If too many people don't have jobs and can't find a dentist, they will start a "voter disobedience".
Of course the second order effects will be huge, but it is, in a sense, necessary development. A democratic country has to be able to keep a majority of its people reasonably satisfied and well-off.
This seems to me more like simplistic attempt to quickly find the reason.
In my poorer corner of Europe we vote for these "anti-system" parties for more than decade. One could argue that they actually are the system. And somehow when in the US every other time "anti-system" sentiment gains the rule (often without popular majority) people see it as deep trend while when other side wins then no-one is saying that "people like globalists". Because I think that it is not really the cause in both cases.
I think it was already 20 years ago when a French sociologist whose name I have forgotten showed that the share of vote for the Front National clearly correlated with various negative economic variables, including "distance from the closest still functional railway station".
FYI I don't believe in "THE REASON" or "THE CAUSE" and I am wary of people who reduce complex issues such as voting patterns to one single root cause, but to deny that economic hardship is a significant factor in anti-system vote seems to be wishful thinking to me.
Show me a relatively rich neighbourhood or voting district (say, over 130 per cent of average national GDP) with above average anti-system vote share, anywhere in Europe. I don't think you will find it. People who have a lot to lose don't rock the boat.
> Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
Living in Trump country doesn’t give you any extra credibility. I also live in “Trump Country” and say that the real reason is because they’re all goofs that fell into a personality cult due to the decline of US education and this country’s obsession with celebrity. Who is correct?
It's odd to me that you start your post with "No, that's not it", because I think that both your post and the one you are responding to are exactly correct.
You state "the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans. ...globalization has not helped them as much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns."
I 100% agree with that. But I think that many folks are so enthralled with Trump because he was the first politician to really acknowledge this simmering rage, give it legitimacy, and say that it's all those woke, city-dwelling liberals fault. The GP comment says "The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more", but that fits perfectly in with your explanation as well. A lot of Trump supporters are pissed as hell about the hollowing out of their communities, and they're looking to bring retribution for those they blame for their downfall (or the ones Trump has convinced them are responsible for their downfall). Heck, Trump even said it loudly and proudly, "I am your retribution."
It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places - the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the same thing.
They remember how their towns were when they were young, they had a bustling locally owned and operated main street full of commercial activity, they also often had a factory, or mill which provided good jobs too.
Some of the parallel commenters here only think rural = farming, and thats not true. If you look at the Carolinas for example, there were textile and lumber mills - farming there is still more or less as healthy as its every been - but all of those other sources of employment which brought money in from outside of the community are gone.
This story repeats itself in a bunch of places, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and across the greater west too.
This rot started well before Reagan though - it's something I've called "the 1971 problem". If you go on a road trip across rural America, you'll rarely see a locally funded building (aka, not a chain store), built after 1971-3 - with the notable exception to this being places with a military base, college, or some other government facility - and I think the causes are multiple here, post vietnam drawdown of forces, détente, the 1973 oil crisis, stagflation, the Nixon shock, then later the so-called peace dividend after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war.
Globalization thru the 80's-90's just made all of these issues worse, and hollowed out manufacturing too - now all of this this effected cities too, to some extent, but as you mention, cities got benefits of globalization - more information economy jobs, greater wealth flowing in from the financialization of everything, which while didnt replace the jobs lost in manufacturing, did replace the wealth generated by it. (there are even more things I've not really touched on - like the steady decrease in local ownership of businesses, and the corresponding civic rot that kicks in when this happens)
There is another issue I also want to touch on here - "jobs for regular people" - for a significant portion of the population, the best job they can hope for is a decent factory job, a job in the trades - or more likely today, a not so great service job. One of the reasons I want to onshore manufacturing is that we need those higher quality jobs to ensure the benefits of our economy are shared more broadly.
I'm a proponent of tariffs as a way to solve this - not what Trump is doing which are penalty tariffs - but what I've called cost adjustment tariffs - tariffs that adjust the price of imported manufactured goods to the same level as if they were made here, where you price in labor differences overall regulatory burden, environmental and climate rules, and other factors - on a fundamental level, I feel it is immoral to export all the externalities from manufacturing to another country (pollution being the primary one I'm thinking of).
While tariffs, even at some low level may result in slower GDP growth. People cannot eat or pay their rent with GDP - a more ideal answer (one I support) is UBI, but UBI doesn't appear to politically possible - and there is also value in being able to do work where you can see the fruits of your labor (both in the physical good you've made - and the pay check you get at the end of the week), for good or for bad, it gives you self worth and a feeling of purpose too.
So I get why rural voters vote for Trump, and its because my side has failed to understand the economic pain that anyplace that isn't a tier 1/2/3 city has experienced over the last 50 years - and what their needs are for the future. In the end, I think Trump will fail them, and probably make everything else worse - but he's the horse that the American people who could be bothered to show up to vote picked (I'll note much to my consternation, that 3m less people voted in 2024 vs 2020).
> It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places - the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the same thing.
Yes, and they're very aware that Trump is not a Republican in the traditional sense. It doesn't matter to them which banner he hijacked, they know he's different.
I'm more skeptical of that statement - sure, I think some are aware.
Some are just blind partisans, otherwise those places wouldn't have been voting for team red for the last 35 years or so.
There is also the paradox of the low information voter too, which seemed to have broken for Trump 2:1 - that does concern me some.
Trump also has a huge benefit with low information voters, he spews noise all the time which the news media covers with baited breath.
I call it the "Trump says alot of things" problem - it allowed people to paint whatever they wanted him to be onto him by essentially cherry picking the various things he's said to make up their own collage view of whatever they wanted him to be.
I don't necessarily agree with Bernie Sanders about the medicine either, but his diagnosis is correct: the Democratic Party abandoned middle America and the working class, so they abandoned it.
America decided in the 1970s to liquidate its interior and its manufacturing base to make Wall Street rich from the labor arbitrage trade, and did so with the full throated support of both parties.
I live in the outer suburbs of a middle American city. The idea that all Trump supporters are cult members is vastly overblown. There is some of that, but much of his support is exasperation. Rural and working class Americans have nothing to lose and nowhere to go but down. The choice is to vote for Trump or keep watching everyone commit suicide with fentanyl. They know Trump might be full of shit or might not have any real solutions, but they also know Democrats and mainstream Republicans will continue to sell them out.
It's also important to understand that for the most part working class and small town Americans don't want welfare, which is the only thing the Democratic Party (possibly, maybe) offers them. They want jobs. They want to feel useful, to do useful things. Unless you are disabled, accepting welfare is disgraceful. I remember my mom (a lifelong Democrat BTW who hates Trump) feeling humiliated to use food stamps for a brief period when I was a kid. "These are for people who really need them. I don't need them." She worked as hard as she could to get off them. Americans want to do things.
MAGA is as much anti-traditional-Republican as it is anti-Democrat. In fact I know a few Trump voters whose hatred for the likes of Bush II and the Cheneys is greater than for Democrats. It's a third political party that has taken over the corpse of the Republican party that Bush II destroyed.
I didn't vote for Trump because I don't think he actually cares either, and I loathe the man in general. I also have two daughters, and his MAGA movement is full of people who cheer for pro-rape influencers like Andrew Tate or want to LARP the Handmaid's Tale. I can't vote for a movement that is openly allied with such people. Their performative scapegoating of LGBTQ people is gross too, and then there's the crazy autocrat ideologies lurking at the margins. Even if MAGA has some policy points I agree with, the movement is just too intellectually batty and personally disgusting to support.
I see nobody on the US political stage that I actually like. I voted for Harris as a "holding pattern" vote in the hope that something better will appear in the future. It's better to stay with the bad option than to go for obviously worse options. If you look around the world "just shaking things up" with nothing better waiting in the wings usually results in a bad outcome. Successful major political shifts or revolutions require a superior alternative with better ideas.
Do you think they'll be able to observe that prices are higher and their lives are even harder? My greatest concern is that the disaffected voters will be persuaded to go on a "long march," for some sort of "five year plan," that prevents them from reacting to the extreme negative effects.
They're not as dumb as you think. They know tariffs will raise prices. What they think is that tariffs may repatriate manufacturing, leading to more and better jobs and higher wages. Lower prices have resulted from outsourcing, which has resulted in their unemployment and under-employment.
They had a different reaction to price increases under Biden because those were not resulting from pro-American-worker trade policies, or at least were not perceived as such. In reality Biden was doing some things to try to repatriate manufacturing, but these policies were badly communicated if they were telegraphed at all, and they were not enough.
Constantly assuming these people are all just stupid isn't winning back any votes. To be fair: Republicans and MAGA spend a lot of time attacking straw man Democrats and liberals too.
BTW -- I see what they're thinking, but I suspect a lot of repatriated manufacturing will be so heavily automated it will not result in the mass employment gains they're hoping for.
Accepting price increases, agricultural failure and significant hardship because in five years someone might build a factory describes the five-year plan - the real one.
>> Except, that's the exact same outcome you get even if you vote for Trump, unless there's something I'm not seeing?
I think you are correct.
Trump promised change and had "concepts of a plan".
Democrats promised more of the same, and then realized that that was unpopular and then threw together a plan that they said would work.
The reality now is that Trump's promised change may or may not help those voters economically, but the accompanying geopolitical disruptions may be worse.
The way I look at Trump/MAGA is they took over an ineffective, sclerotic Republican party that spent 40 years talking about “family values” while selling off the productive base of the country to globalization and letting rural America rot. The tea-party movement of the late aughts was their last chance to avoid being decapitated. They failed. The Republican party has been hollowed out and is simply not the same entity it was 10 years ago. It has been taken over by a very angry insurgent force.
As I see, the Democrat Party is where the Republicans were in 08/09. They have, perhaps, a few more years of whatever it is they are doing before they similarly get taken over.
Best case scenario: we end up with a new political party (or two) that represent the more sane interests of the old guard and of the population as a whole. Worst case scenario: we end up with two absolutely insane zombie versions of our two legacy political parties fighting for control of the nation.
At least we don’t have more guns than people and a bunch of nukes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
insightful -- you should know that California Senator Dianne Feinstein and husband Richard Blum, personally made a billion dollars from creating the China -> USA cheap goods conveyor belt. Blum also owned oil transportation business. This occurred over the decades between the Oil Shock 70's and dot-com 90s. The trade changes are still playing out.
> people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices
We’ve been falling over ourselves trying to understand these poor misunderstood Trump voters for nearly 10 years now. We’ve all heard these rationalizations many times before.
That's what populists do, everywhere including Europe - they take real issue and low-income & low-education folks (usually big overlap), tell then how they were wronged, play on their emotions, dumb down things to us-vs-them yada yada.
But they never ever deliver any real solution. Never. What trump solved in first term? No wall, he was joke of the world for that. No middle east peace - fuck, he made the invasion to Israel by giving Jerusalem official israeli status. Palestinians lost all hope at that point (I know its way more complex than that, I know, but this was the trigger point to go full mental like a cornered animal). Afghanistan withdrawal? Thats his contracts with taliban which made US look so weak they were shooting ducks as you guys and rest of west literally ran away for your life.
To make any successful long term massive changes, you need a steady leadership. trump is the opposite due to his mental & childhood issues, heck he is the epitome of instability. And so he drags whole world into same instability, changing global markets from bullish to bearish within a week, losing literally all friends and allies, globally. No, puttin' ain't your friend and never will be, he is a murderous sociopathic p.o.s. till his last breath.
If simpler folks refuse to see all this and much more and connect those few dots, your idea of babysitting them and hald-holding in ever changing environment is laughable. Even in Europe you guys consider semi-communist we don't do that, we can't do that, its idiotic. This problem is not unique to US in any way and solution ain't what he wants to do. But its so nice to hear all that crap, "I will fix your woes", "the others are to blame for all your issues" and so on. Full on emotions, 0 rationality. Folks, even societies work like that, but get ready China will overtake you sooner than you would like.
I kept thinking he is just a russian agent brainwashed in 80s during his visit to moscow (maybe deep hypnosis or something else), but it seems more and more he is doing massive favors to China actually, since russia is already insignificant globally. I don't mean some pesky tariffs, I mean whole world will realign around China, and he is giving it all to them for free. Bravo.
How much is also the hate on LGBTQ and woke people? Just curious, I see in Romaia the rise of such fascist group that suck on Putin because he also wants the woke and LGBTQ dead and he is a Christian men that kills the assassinated the traitors in the name of God.
The culture war stuff FOLLOWS from economic depression. Once someone is in the financial dumps, they're already angry, and it's easy to redirect that anger to meaningless culture war stuff.
The anti-woke grassroots rhetoric around here is more about how much of a waste of time it is when they should be focused on issues that matter to people's livelihood. It's not hate on LGBTQ so much as irritation that something that doesn't seem to matter (to them) is given so much emphasis while the working class struggles.
It’s… largely being given emphasis by ‘their’ side, though? Which side of the political divide spends all their time going on about trans people? I mean, it’s very much the right.
But is it given so much importance by the politicians?
The reason I ask is that here in Romania the issue is completly fabircated by the social media and amplified by the algorithm. What I mean there was not a single law pro LGBTQ passed in Romania, the educational system is not teaching children about LGBTQ, there are no changes in schools or other places to unixes bathrooms, no forced or assisted transitioning programs.
It is just media with conspiracies like the COVID vaccines makes you gay, 5G makes you gay, Bruxelles wants to make your children gay, Soros wants to make the children gay. There are also staged video with transexuals making a circus and shared on TikTok. So now we have a lot of idiots that actually thinks that we need to surrender to Putin so he can kill the traitors and the gays.
I did read "Hillbilly Elegy" and come from a rust-belt city with rural family.
I understand your perspective, but I don't think that explains most of Trump's actions. The (very valid!) critique of globalist profiteering you shared has been boiled down into something beyond economics and into tribalism.
I blame decades of right-wing media dominance on cable TV and rural radio.
Isn’t that wanting your cake and eating it too? Conservativism rejects progress and changes by definition, so these people purposefully didn’t adapt to changes since the rust belt occurred, and NOW they are so worse off and want blood in the water.
What changes should the Rust Belt have made that would have prevented the gutting of their communities when financiers and board rooms decided to ship their livelihoods to third world countries?
There isn’t a “progress” switch to turn on. The current state of the Rust Belt isn’t because they are full of knuckle dragging idiots inferior to the coasts. It’s because they were dealt the economic equivalent of a traumatic brain injury, and have spent decades trying to recover. Meanwhile, the areas of the country that inflicted this injury on them are now trying to convince everyone that it was their own fault.
I’m as disgusted by Trump as anyone, and would never vote for him. But I am from the Rust Belt and absolutely sympathize with the anger that would make someone want to burn the system down.
Half my family is from the south and I lived in Ohio for years. They could have stopped giving tithes to churches on every corner and giving away their land and resources at pennies to massive corporations that have no allegiance and invested in education and social programs for the long term instead or in addition. The Rust Belt and the South were WEALTHY economies don't ever forget it. You can see the remnants of that wealth in the slave quarters adjacent to every house in certain neighborhoods, the massive plantations, the rusting industrial areas. They HAD money to invest in the past for securing a better future.
How? Trickle down has failed every time it’s been employed, most recently in Kansas. And as far as I can tell, massive tax cuts for the donor class is all we’re getting this budget cycle.
It’ll hurt the S&P500, sure. Far less clear how it’d benefit the working class, tho. Like, how does that work? You’d expect a decline in economic activity (ie fewer jobs, and lower or negative wage growth for what jobs do exist), and an increase in prices. That doesn’t help anyone much except _arguably_ the predatory super-rich (who can buy stuff up cheap), but even then it’s not a clear win for them either.
How do you see some sort of benefit for the working class? Has Trump, Musk, or literally anyone associated with this administration ever made any move towards that? Trump in particular is famous for not paying people.
Tariffs are an inefficiency that lowers profits and raises the cost of goods but they also create manufacturing jobs which benefit the working class. That's my mental model- I'm not an economist. I also strongly disagree with the tariffs on Canada and Mexico and almost all of the current policy decisions. There might be a method to the tariffs madness though is all that I'm saying.
This can kind of be the case with narrow, directed tariffs (protectionism of a vulnerable uncompetitive industry, for instance see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax), or in a developing country that has mostly primary industry (that is extractive industry, mining and that sort of thing). In a developed country, it’s a lot more complicated; a lot of that manufacturing probably depends on imported materials or parts (so tariffs hurt it from that direction) and a lot of the market is probably export (which tariffs also hit, for tariffs more or less inevitably lead to retaliatory tariffs).
And where you have heavy protectionism, the _consumer_ tends to suffer, as the protected industries have little incentive to make their products good or cheap. See British Leyland; for quite a while the British government attempted to keep it alive by heavily restricting the import of actually good cars. Spoiler: it did not work.
Say we put a tariff on socks. And Hanes opens a sock factory in the US. Is a few hundred sock jobs going to help the millions who aren’t making socks? Does working in the sock factory pay enough to buy computers and cars and other higher margin goods?
Generally speaking, for broad tariffs, the answer is “No”.
Tariffs could mean a few hundred sock jobs but also cotton jobs, nylon jobs, rubber jobs, dye jobs, etc.
All more expensive than importing but supports local economies. Again, I'm not an economist, and tariffs are not a panacea, but they are also not useless.
They’re useless when used as blunt instruments as we’re seeing today. Broad tariffs on raw materials and goods - the cost hurts the general public more than any benefit to the few.
There’s a place for tariffs. Protecting against countries that undercut us by skirting international labor or environmental laws is a decent example. Protecting a specific, narrow industry that has national defense implications could be another.
But against Canada and Mexico? GTFO. That’s nonsense that’s going to hurt the average consumer.
As an European with seizable(for me) position in SP500 etf, which I never inteneded to liquidate, am actually thinking to completely deinvest from US. Purely because of what Trump did and will do to Ukraine and because of his dismantling of postwar Atlantic security architecture
Here I was, thinking that the most self-sacrificing action an American well off enough to have retirement savings (no immediate tax on capital gains) could take would be to divest from all domestic stocks and funds and shift to international ones.
Might not turn out to be as self-sacrificing as I thought.
Since the Trump administration took over, Tesla shares and Musk’s wealth are up by hundreds of billions, tens of thousands of working class are fired, prices are up, tariffs are making imports more expensive, welfare help programs are cut, retaliatory tariffs are reducing exports.
How is your mental model literally backwards from reality?
Briefly, the parts of the map that voted for Trump are largely known as flyover country. To oversimplify things, the people in this area have been neglected and talked down to by some portion of the political apparatus as far back as they can remember.
In some cases, the vote for Trump wasn't meant to be anything more than punitive. To get a rise out of the politically aligned groups that can afford to fly over and - literally - look down on.
Farm subsidies and other special programs have been flowing to "flyover country" at an enhanced rate for almost a century (for about as long as the government has done things like that) as a result of the constitutional rule that says each state gets two senators regardless of population. The trade war is presently creating an economic crisis for those farmers, who primarily sell their crops outside the US.
Flyover states versus costal states is too simplistic and inaccurate. A more accurate reduction is rural+suburban (isolated insular) communities versus urban (integrated diverse) communities.
Part of the reason many people consider those areas “flyovers” is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in those areas.
Now, maybe there’s an obligation to turn the other cheek, reach out, and try to educate people in flyovers. But it is far too reductive to act like the blame points one way here and it’s just snobby elites who have abandoned these populations.
I think this is where "flyover" talk is so useless.
Look at Minneapolis, and Minnesota in general. Wealthy, hugely diverse, amazingly Red rural areas and unbelievably Blue urban areas. It's a lot like California, honestly.
I spend a lot of time in the “flyover” areas, and this is simply not true at all. Maybe it was long ago, but we are no longer living in that age. It seems like the media want to portray middle America as some kind of medieval redneck nightmare thunderdome, for reasons I cannot fathom.
I'm not even sure it was ever true. I think it's just become part of the folklore of urban leftists, potentially as a way to justify their lives even when nobody was demanding a justification.
I have visited. My long-haired male traveling companion got homophonic slurs yelled at him in the street twice in four days. I’m sure those yelling were trying to make a good life for their families by chasing undesirables out, and I suppose it worked.
> Part of the reason many people consider those areas “flyovers” is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in those areas.
It's not all roses and butterflies but a blanket statement like "women/gays/nerds/minorities get treated very badly" in these areas is laughable and very "online"/detached from reality.
The main victim of this order is the US defense industry.
What Ukrainians need most are the low-cost drones made of commercial parts from Asia which have made it hard for the Russians to fire artillery and supply the front. To produce these drones, they need cash. The Europeans have mastered the art of sending cash to Ukrainian vendors that serve actual battlefront needs, and doing so under strict supervision to prevent fraud. Europe can fill the gap the Us is leaving in military aid if they spend their cash right.
For the last two years, I have supported a US non-profit sending non-lethal aid to Ukraine, my CB if it used for drone defense and EW.
Cheap is a technological frontier. If you operate on that frontier, you are able to trade less expensive pieces for more expensive pieces, pawns for queens. This is the cost-exchange ratio. All other things being equal, the country that best lowers the cost basis of its materiel will win a war of attrition; ie the other side exhausts its resources first.
The US does not operate on the frontier of cheap because of bad incentives, namely cost-plus procurement.
What's truly eroding trust is the voting system. A system that places so much power in a single individual with complete immunity exposes its vulnerabilities-especially in a time when people can be manipulated so effectively. To be honest, I see the lack of justice as the biggest problem. If the highest courts in the U.S. are essentially political institutions, shaped by those in power rather than acting as neutral arbiters of justice, that seems absurd to me. It feels like you can basically do whatever you want. And the lifetime mandate? That's a joke. As a European, I'm sorry for shitting on Europeans. It's far from ideal here, but I'm finally starting to appreciate what we have. Let's hope this would not spread.
Lack of trust on voting system has been brewing for a while. The Democratic establishment has successfully and unsuccessfully tried to shoehorn choice candidates last few election cycles. While republican candidates have been questionable, there's no denying that they went with whoever the voters wanted.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
Sometimes people are more interested in inflicting pain to others than to improve their own situation.
What about all the "liberals", including many on this site, that not only bought into but actively promoted the cult of personality around Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX? Musk has always been a charlatan, and the majority of this very site bought into it.
It’s easy to prove that half is wrong as well because all the US’ (past) global friends are screaming at the US trying to save them from driving off the cliff. It’s one thing for the US to want to remake itself - gradual, cooperative plans to reduce engagement on the world stage over multiple years would have been something manageable.
Pulling the cord with such little respect will not be forgotten. The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in 5-10 years time. The rest of the world is likely to sanction the US at this rate. It is violating all of its agreements in bad faith.
Practically speaking I think it requires a lot of will, momentum, and process to change this. The decision even if made soon would probably take a few years to complete.
Supplementing it may be faster (eg. adding Euro and/or Yuan) than outright replacing it, but it’s not my area of expertise. The timeframe was based on some light research.
And this will inflate away the debts tokenized in CCP-held US Treasuries. 4D chess! Russia did something similar in 1998 that sank the US hedge fund Long Term Capital Management.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
If Taiwan didn’t give up on the US and start making alternative plans on Nov 7th, that was a huge mistake. The US has made it clear that not only is it abandoning traditional allies, it will likely side with any invading force that exercises the “might makes right” principle.
If the PRC should actually decide to invade, it is going to be extremely difficult to hold that off on their own for an extended period of time. Which means they need allies who can rapidly deploy a sufficiently large force to stabilise the situation.
But the only way to get there is with a naval force, and air supremacy would likely be critical to the outcome of that fight, which means you need someone with a large carrier fleet, and that is pretty much a pool of one.
Without US help, there is very little hope that Taiwan would not be overrun sooner or later. Their only real hope would be a nuclear weapons programme that would allow them to credibly threaten to nuke Beijing if invaded. But the PRC would never let it get that far and would make sure to strike before that could be completed.
Certainly ultra-secret nuclear program makes sense. Perhaps working with another country with development abroad so there is nowhere directly related for China to strike in Taiwan (the calculus for “we attacked a weapons development facility in Taiwan” is different from “we attacked Taiwan because they are participating in weapons development in the Philippines)
Probably also increased military and economic ties to South Korea and Australia, and an effort to build a NATO of the area, absent the US, perhaps under ASEAN. Or something new.
It’s a tough problem but it’s a real problem and I don’t see how Taiwan could ever go back to trusting the US to defend democracies facing invasion.
There is a trivial alternative that military strategists have been suggesting for decades. For a nation of 20+ M, having a reservist army of 1M would be feasible and make the island impossible to invade even if the rest of Earth would join forces to do that.
1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary.
2) Thinking purely transactionally, the US is very dependent on Tiawan due to TSMC. Most of the US' largest tech companies are investing heavily in AI hardware (TSMC chips) and/or rely directly on TSMC for their own supply chain. I have no idea whether Trump et al see it this way, or this would be enough to trigger the US to protect Tiawan, but transactionally, it's immeasurably more valuable to the US than Ukraine.
> 1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary.
That's not a guarantee at all. The only thing he's every been honest, consistent and truthful about is that nothing is sacred, everything's on sale, no values (economic, patriotic, environmental, political) will stand in the way of his own profit, there's always the willingness to make a deal and sell something (someone) off, and fuck the consequences, no matter how gigantic, embarrassing, and suicidally bad they are. Negative-sum deals are absolutely on the table as long as he comes out richer or more powerful.
China just needs to make a good offer and Taiwan's fucked when it comes to Trump's support.
Sure, but I'm imagining a situation where China ensures the ongoing operations of TSMC via negotation with TSMC and the Trump government, to the satisfaction of all parties, and then being 'allowed' to take Tiawan as a result. For example, they could allow TSMC to function as an American-run entity for a number of years, or offer US companies very friendly terms, or something similar.
This doesn't account for the actions of Tiawanese nationalists working in TSMC setting off the kill routine themselves, irrespective of the deal struck, but it's still an interesting scenario.
Don't listen to what politician say, watch what they do, to be fair his decisions were very anti-china, I mean, maybe it going to backfire, but it was anti-chine in it's principle
He’s too erratic to take any past behavior as evidence of the future. If he breaks promises to a bunch of allies, no other ally should feel safe because he hasn’t broken theirs yet.
All it would take for a pro-China pivot is the right leverage. Cash, blackmail, who knows. But it’s just a matter of whether the price is met, not whether the deal is available.
Certain political factions* in Taiwan should be worried.
The actual Taiwanese people are breathing a sigh of relief that they are increasingly avoiding the "primrose path" of Ukraine: Catastrophic death and destruction based on lies, marginally enriching foreign countries and a corrupt domestic elite.
The idea I think was that China would also rather not engage in a hot war with the US over it, and therefore would be content with the status quo (or at least content to wait for a favorable political climate in the US...).
USA had two military alliances of central importance, one with Germany, one with Japan.
The first is to keep Russia in check, the second China.
The rumours of a carve-up, spheres of influence, begin to resonate.
Problem is, you cannot run a country as if it were a business, because to do is to value influence and power above freedom, human dignity, and human suffering.
Japan’s constitution and postwar treaties with the United States constrain their ability to rearm and use military force. Those need to be amended and renegotiated in order for Japan to be an effective ally in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan’s been asking for a change in the status quo for years. Trump is signaling not only a willingness to encourage Japanese rearmament, but a willingness to sell it to the American people in terms of their own interests.
And frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if the same weren’t true of Europe as well. Ever since at least the Obama administration, the US has been begging Europe to increase their defense spending. Aside from Poland, none of them have done so. That might be changing now. Europe didn’t rearm when Obama (whom you actually liked) asked nicely. Getting to sneer at Trump and the United States is a much more effective permission structure. And then the next time we elect a Democrat, Western Europe will give him a Nobel peace prize and pretend the whole thing never happened, just like the last time.
this is the best news ever... all these other countries keep up conflict to keep the bankers happy while they exploit our resiurces for corrupt politicians and business men... Everyone crying about the economy, but our economy is already shit and extending out these corrupt ppl corrupt directives will only keep us (on the private side) in economic turmoil... We've been in perpetual conflict over 2 decades... It's time to focus on us...
If someone thinks that "We've been in perpetual conflict" includes the support being to given to ukraine, in which we send them cluster munitions that we would otherwise have to pay to dismantle while risking virtually zero american armed service member lives, they need to recalibrate their senses because they're not doing a good job.
The Ukrainian people deserve sovereignty, full stop. If someone believes in traditional American values, (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) they should support the fight against russian aggression, and IMO the flimsy and poor arguments being made about focusing on our economy reek of dishonesty when someone thinks about how integrated the US economy is with the world's.
I fully expect that in some near future the civilian infrastructure also will be de-coupled from USA in the name of national security by other nations.
At this very moment, Apple and Google have the ability to disable communications for billions of people. They can make computers and phones totally unusable. Not just some features but everything.
EU was trying to legislate around this risk by forcing companies to bring data on EU soil and open their platform to alternative providers. They always tried to be gentle with it as companies will claim that they are taken advantage of but as the things unfold at this pace I'm pretty sure that it EU and probably the rest of the world will be very heavy handed the moment there's an instance of US president or US tech oligarch decides to shut down group of people from their devices to teach them a lesson or to compel them into something like they did with military systems in Ukraine.
I was afraid for years that people will be insulated into groups and the global community will be destroyed and now I feel like its happening.
I've thought about this for some time now, and am surprised I haven't seen this voiced more often.
The way almost all societies have allowed themselves to be completely dependent on a few providers is mind-boggling.
Someone else 10,000 miles away has the kill switch for your phone, your credit card, your brokerage account, your TV, likely your HVAC if you're into home automation, maybe your car.
Just recently Musk threatened cutting Ukraine's access to Starlink and then insulted the Polish foreign affairs minister once it was pointed out that its paid by Poland. Here: https://x.com/sikorskiradek/status/1898700362460070080
Even though later he claimed that he did not mean that, I guess more people will start thinking about these things.
Doesn't matter that countries doesn't want F16s, pretty much any US component inside these systems means that they require US approval for the whole thing. Saab Gripens use a Swedish built version of a US powerplant, which allowed the US to deny sales of the Gripen to Colombia.
Did Ukraine buy any F-16’s? No. They’ve benefitted from the generosity of the United States since 2017, and thanks in large part to that generosity they succeeded in the defense of Kyiv in 2022. Now it’s 2025 and the war has been stalemated for a couple of years. Does the United States have an open-ended obligation to continue supporting, at its own expense, yet another forever war on the other side of the world?
The United States is still being taken for granted. And I have to laugh at the implication that the American economy will be ruined by the effect on the American arms industry when almost every American ally was neglecting their own military, instead taking American security guarantees for granted.
People believe what they want to believe. When reality turns out to not match their expectation, they quietly drop out of the conversation, without admitting they misjudged things.
Best example of that is to take a look at HN in 2022 when Musk announced the Twitter takeover. A good half of the comments were quoting Voltaire and Snowden and applauding Musk for 'protecting free speech'. The other half saw it for what it was. When Musk stories come up now, there is no one still pushing the free speech angle.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside.
They aren't thinking, really. If you look at the online comments from people who support these actions, you'll notice these characteristics: they are usually listing the same talking points, using the exact same collection of key words or "facts" (even in different languages, across different cultures) often strung together like chants, have a conspiratorial notion of a hidden puppeteer directing events or people they disapprove of, conversely they often have a messianic belief in their chosen prophet, and they are usually inexplicably very angry.
You will also notice that the vast majority of them very rapidly, and across cultural boundaries, start parroting the latest talking points. Talking points that didn't exist days before and weren't on anyone's minds.
The chicken hawks that make up the majority on HN don’t share that view unfortunately.
The reality is the military industrial complex has massively corrupted our foreign policy for decades resulting in one disaster abroad after another and trillions down the drain.
It's not the first time it happens. For example, in 2006 the US stopped supplying spare parts to F-16s it sold to Venezuela.[0] Oddly, other countries kept buying F-16s.
Or think about Boeing and Airbus stopping servicing the planes they sold to Russia. Other countries are still buying from them as if nothing happened.
The difference is that now European countries, and other (former?) US allies are starting to see the US as a threat. With people like Trump in power, the chance of a military conflict between the EU and the US is now non-zero, so what's on everyone's mind going forward will be independence from US tech. Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary.
US's republicans still don't grasp what a diplomatic mess Trump is causing, which will surely affect all trade. Actually, I'm expecting consequences for the entire US tech sector, not just the defence sector.
US needs to diversify and have an industrial policy. It also needs to rethink capitalism. Maybe new capitalism with US characteristics and more humanism thrown in. As to the defense industry it needs to shrink and be part of the industrial policy, not depend on warmongering to exist. You can have peace and a defiance industry without wars.
A strong economy only exists with a strong democracy. Billionaires thought this administration would be good for them, but they are just as stupid as anyone.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
Self-interest is a middle-class religion. I think that a lot of Americans think that what we are doing is morally wrong. I also think that the idea that everybody else is going to shun our military exports over ditching Ukraine is absolutely hilarious. Ukraine isn't paying for any of this, they don't even count as a customer. Everybody has been free at all times to buy from the UK, France, and Germany, and if they don't see the difference between themselves and Ukraine, they should make decisions about their futures accordingly.
I might remind them in passing that borrowing money from Germany to buy weapons from Germany was what brought Greece's economy down. Also I'd remind them, for what it's worth, that again they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia for unintelligible reasons.
> they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia
Can we stop this nonsense on both sides? Russia does not want to invade NATO countries, and for sure Germany, France and the UK do not want to invade Russia.
Britain is hawkish because they love continental powers fighting against each other and pulling the strings. They will not send their 50,000 soldiers to Moscow.
Not being troll-y or intentionally obtuse but I have to ask: when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our best interest?
Sure there’s plenty about US policy and actions that have been normalized, but that doesn’t mean they should have been adopted. It doesn’t mean those things should persist without thought or challenge. Even going about that the wrong way is more productive
Yes, The System is fragile (as opposed to antifragile). But then let’s discuss that, not insist on the persistence of fragile-ness.
No one is using fighter jets in this war. Why? And everyone (who knows) knows this: The anti-air technology is too good to field a jet. It will just get shot down. so the Jets are now useless. so there’s no point in supporting useless jets. And no country is going to buy useless jets. But go on and make this political and not about some physical reality of our world.
They are absolutely using 'fighter jets' for standoff munitions delivery. You probably have heard of Storm Shadow and JDAM-ER.
Even if this wasn't the case, they would still not be useless in that the firearms in your house aren't useless if you aren't actively shooting a home invader.
As a U.S. citizen, I don’t want to “bend the knee”. I want to maintain the Pax Americana that keeps us rich and safe. Ceding global leadership to Russia and China and Europe is a myopic move.
How is global leadership being ceded to either Russia or China? That would only happen if European countries prefer building economic and strategic ties with China over the US. If that happened it would mostly be revealing the true colors of Europe, choosing to side with a dictatorship and system that has killed tens of millions. As for Europe itself, I doubt Europe will be able to lead anything given its economic condition. These changes essentially just force people to resolve this one conflict.
Europe will prepare for a future independent of the US, as they have proven to be an unreliable and fickle ally. This breaks the western blocks global dominance, as it is now no longer aligned, breaking into two (or more) blocks. As a result, the US loses much of their global influence.
This just isn't true. He had been publicly stating that there needed to be security guarantees for weeks before the meeting. Also, perhaps if Ukraine had been involved in the prior "peace talks" he would have had an opportunity to state this directly to the US administration.
The US hasn’t been isolationist since WW2, quite the opposite once we were relatively unscathed by the conflict and rose to the worlds #1 military superpower.
It seems to me Trump is following the logic that the current danger to the US is China, not Russia. Approaching Russia may be a strategy to ensure China and Russia (and maybe all BRICS) are not aligned against the US. He probably believes that Europe is not a threat, and won't become one even when the US behave in ways that go against its interests (Which I would say is correct).
I have to say that while that world view may be misguided, and certainly is not a worldview Europeans would agree with, it is nonetheless a rational view, and is almost certainly correct in that Russia alone is not a serious threat to the US, and won't be in the medium term at least (it can barely win in Ukraine, to think it could win against NATO and then go on to take the US is just delusional).
After Zelenskyy came to the White House with the intention of running the already-decided deal to the ground with some newly invented security guarantees not talked about previously, heavily expecting US to bend the knee to him is just out of place.
This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine? Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
The US hasn't been remotely isolationist since at least the start of the 20th century. Once industrialization made the world small, isolationism became a myth. It's just a phrase used by people who want to shirk their duty.
> This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine?
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting. The in person meeting, requested by Zelensky, was supposed to be a photo op. But he unwisely tried to steer it into a different direction and ended up losing the whole thing.
> Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
Yes that’s traditionally what happens to the losers in a conflict. Ukraine does not have the money, guns, or soldiers to win this thing, doublely so without the USA.
Their end state in this is not going to be some pre war border as a NATO state. It’ll be losing land, losing mineral rights, and at best third party non-NATO peacekeepers manning a DMZ.
Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
> Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
Did you even read your own link?
>> Ukraine has agreed on the terms of a minerals deal with the United States and could sign it as early as Friday on a trip to Washington by President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official said.
And then later on:
>> The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees. Told them he'd sign in in the USA. Then after he got here, he demanded additional things that were not part of the already agreed upon deal.
The disinformation is you claiming that they had not reached an agreement that does not include explicit security guarantees.
That’s never been disputed by Ukraine and there are multiple US sources claiming that they had come to that agreement. The only formality was actually signing it and Zelensky said he wanted to do it at the Whitehouse.
Otherwise why was he in the USA? One doesn’t fly halfway around the world for a photo op if there’s no deal in place. And there’s no record of the USA ever offering explicit security guarantees. Only the opposite.
Zelensky said ahead of time he wound sign it. The entire point of him visiting was to sign it. He insisted on coming in person to do it even though the White House said it wasn’t necessary.
What actually likely happened is that Democrats who met with Zelensky right before the meeting with Trump and Vance, like Chris Murphy, pressured or convinced Zelensky to reject the deal. This is disputed by the Democrats. So maybe it was something else - like simply a last minute impulsive choice by Zelensky. Either way it was unexpected that he would change his mind and would lead the event in a different direction.
As for “no agreed benefit” - the benefit was continued US support in the short term until a peace is negotiated. After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion. European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants. But for American taxpayers this is a huge expense adding to the dangers of a debt spiral.
Your “actually likely” take lasted exactly two sentences before you admit it wasn’t actually likely. You might want to reconsider your assumption that this was decided by the person with the least agency, especially when undisciplined revenge and extortion are well-established patterns by the guy who made the attack. He’s had a personal grudge since the events of his impeachment so the most parsimonious explanation is that this is exactly what it looks like.
As for “no agreed benefit” - the benefit was continued US support in the short term until a peace is negotiated.
False:
Ukraine had asked for security guarantees from the US as part of any agreement.
The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
"There is a general clause that says America will invest in a stable and prosperous sovereign Ukraine, that it works for a lasting peace, and that America supports efforts to guarantee security."
There was no "deal". There was a contract where Ukraine would sign over minerals with nothing but vague platitudes. Ukraine has already been through that with Russia and denuclearization.
After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion.
False:
To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants.
False:
Since the start of the war, the EU and our Member States have made available close to $145 billion in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance, of which 65% have been provided as grants or in-kind support and 35% in the form of highly concessional loans.*
False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
I don’t have time to reply to all your points, so I’ll just pick a couple.
> False:
> To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
There’s a lot of editorialization here. But Russia was provoked. By NATO expansionism as well as the illegal coup in 2014 in Ukraine, which basically denied voting rights for the half of Ukraine that supported relations with Russia.
As for the numbers - your numbers are misleading because they’re only about part of the what’s been set aside overall, which is indeed around 200 billion.
> False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
It’s not a drop in the bucket. It is a huge amount to anyone. It can be used in many other ways. They aren’t just “old armaments” - a lot of this equipment is still in service, usable in war, and at least can be sold to generate income and help taxpayers or pay off debt. Also Ukraine is not an ally.
Actually we just want the war in Ukraine to end. Hope that helps.
There's a lot of bloviating from the chattering class about cozying up to Russia, but I've yet to hear a cogent alternative. And no, I don't think "endlessly funding Ukraine to a forever stalemate" qualifies.
It may surprise you but Russia is not winning. It has been exhausting itself for no measurable benefit, at the cost for US taxpayers of roughly a coffee per day.
Up to now, Ukraine has never received the support it would need to win, just enough not to lose. Weapons deliveries been too little, too late, making the war longer and bloodier than it needs to be. In the meantime domestic production has increased to the point Ukraine covers 30% of its needs.
Russia has lost other wars, it can and should lose this one.
> How many more billions do we need to send to ensure Russia loses? Any how many more years will it take?
You have to compare with how much will it cost if the war continues to grow in scale or intensity. Russia is dedicating more and more resources to its war machine. And I have no reason to think it will stop if Ukraine. In 2022 Putin already said he wanted NATO back to 1991, IOW he wants Eastern Europe defenseless.
Russia's economy is just the size of Spain or Italy: not negligible, but not formidable either. Europe should do more, much more, if only for its own sake.
> And what does "loss" even look like? Are you genuinely proposing they will simply pack up and head home from all captured territory?
Territorial issues are somewhat secondary. What matters is that the defeat is clear and Russia's leaders discouraged from attempting to go to war again. It happened to Russia against Japan in 1905, and to the USSR in Afghanistan. It can happen again.
just because it hasnt worked so far doesnt mean it won't work. the time horizon matters. is russia gonna give up in 10 years? this is a bad plan. in 1 year? maybe not so much.
why do you want the war to end? is it just a moral calculus of lives lost? how can you be sure that ukraine capitulating to russia will lead to less lives lost than one more year of war? 100,000-600,000 people died in the occupation of iraq, why do you think that a russian occupation of Ukraine will be less bloody?
I don't think it is wise or ethical to spend billions of dollars prolonging a forever-war thousands of miles away.
I also don't think it's wise or rational to presume that every aggressive action necessarily means that the aggressor is Hitler or bent on world domination. Or even that opposing them by sending resources to their enemy is the most effective way to stop it.
For the US, this is an extremely cheap [1] way to counter Russia. Ukraine is doing 99% of the work. We give them money which they immediately give back to us to buy hardware. Or we give mothballed hardware slated for destruction. Most prefer this to a future with dead Americans and US boots on the ground in Europe when NATO countries are invaded by Russia, emboldened by a world that gave up on Ukraine.
[1] as a percentage of the US$850,000,000,000 _annual_ Pentagon budget
If Ukraine stops the fight they cease to be a sovereign nation. If Russia stops they loose face. The former is existential, the latter is not. Why is this so hard to understand?
Any ceasefire or peace without security guarantees will be used by Russia to rearm and try again in a few years time. It will be a continuation of the conflict that started in 2014. That, too, isn't hard to understand.
Winning the attrition war. They have most likely less than a year left before their economy crumbles. 21% interest rates, capital controls, official 10% inflation, annihilated non military sectors (fe cars), forcing their banks to give loans to anything military adjacent while forbidding them to call them in.......
I am sure the Europeans would be willing to shoulder more of the cost but the US has been cutting Ukraine off from intelligence sources and now also support. There is no cost argument for that.
Also do you really think that these decisions will not cost the US in lost sales, reassurances for everything because of lost trust....
Giving Ukraine all the weapons it needed and asked for, instead of destroying them soon, would be a good start. Also, you know, not forbidding Ukraine to use its long-range drones to damage Russia's oil industry would also be helpful. This is to get started. I can continue.
Taiwan makes some of the most complex devices humans have ever constructed! They can figure out the almost 100 year old technology to make a gun bomb nuke.
If you think Taiwan shouldn't cease to exist, how else can you guarantee that? It's either nukes or US protection and nobody trusts the Americans anymore.
so your alternative of inaction involves a likely outcome of raping and murdering thousands of civilians in the name of peace for thousands of soldiers.
I'm sure they'll still accept your personal donations, but no, I don't think spending billions to ostensibly prolong a forever-war thousands of miles away is even necessarily a good or ethical thing.
the us can do plenty of things without spending billions of dollars that are short of this, and yes, i have personally donated to the Ukrainian effort.
An obvious alternative is to increase support to Ukraine to give them what they need to expel Russia. The good old USA has the resources to do that but Republicans have blocked increasing aid at the orders of Donald Trump for years now. And now that he is in power he is finally blocking it altogether.
You must be being deliberately obtuse at this stage. He's not saying the Crimea incursion should have been fought again more. He's saying that allowing the annexation of Crimea to be relatively peacful didn't prevent the subsequent imvasion of Ukraine, and as such, stopping the war now and allowing Russia to keep the gains it has made may lead to a short-term peace, but will likely not prevent another war in the future.
Given Putin's stated wishes, this will only stop if Russia is unable to make such moves (for whatever reason) or states at risk of invasion are defended such that it's strategically stupid for Russia to even try.
I believe a big crux is in definition of "war ended".
You (and Donald Trump) seem to be using "Ukraine and Russia stop shooting at each other right now", while Ukraine operates more under "Russia stops shooting at us for the foreseeable future, 20 years at least." Russia has previously broken a number of ceasefires and written agreements (including the infamous Budapest memorandum) and so Ukraine is not super trusting to agreements not backed by anything.
What Ukraine will accept is entirely dependent on how much funding they will get from foreign powers to continue their war effort.
I've had a lot of responses to my comment, yet I've seen no alternative ideas presented that will result in a different outcome. What is your plan for getting Russia to lose this war?
I would rather not have to live through an emboldened and desperate autocracy rolling over Europe and opening up the very real possibility of a third world war.
and while we're here, since the US is ostensibly going isolationist, maybe they should stop telling the Ukrainians they need to submit to subjugation.
I think the story is Russia becomes powerful enough to threaten Europe, one state at a time.
Ukraine has an amazing job, but they wouldn't have been able to do even that without convincing others that it was in their best interest to fund the war. That's been clear from the beginning.
The war is the genocide. Putin’s invasion would have killed thousands, maybe tens of thousands and been over in a week. Western involvement changed that into the deaths of hundreds of thousands. What more effective means of self-genocide could Europe conceive? Germany cannot exactly round up a whole class of their own for slaughter again in their current political environment. The West (England, Germany, France, etc) caused WWI and WWII not Russia. Now we (America) should trust their vision to avoid WWIII? We should be clear who the problem is and stay out of it.
This is such incredibly twisted logic. I would have honestly been aghast to see this on HN a few years ago, but now the site seems nearly as infected as Facebook or X with this.
For Ukraine to continue existing, the russians have to be driven out. Otherwise the genocide will continue. The genocide caused by russians, caused by russians invading Ukraine, caused by russians stealing Ukraine's children.
In america's right wing trump followers, there is utter, sociopathic, monstrous indifference to Ukraine's suffering.
So I'll ask you, personally: If the neighbouring state or country decided to invade and take over an area of your state, and you were told "you've been resisting too long, give in already and give up your fight", would you lay down and welcome the invaders you've been fighting? If you knew that the invaders were stealing children, and murdering whole towns?
You should not conflate Stalin with Russia. The socialists and communists were terrible for everyone everywhere they went…
I’m not blaming Ukrainians for fighting. I am saying it is evil to give Ukraine only enough to suffer. However Europe again has socialists in power and it again means death for Ukrainians.
I find some of the comments I’ve read today in this thread somewhat enlightening - there is intelligent conversation about the capabilities of the American hardware and its software.
The sophistication of the F-35 cannot be debated. But the rest of the world doesn’t trust the US anymore, so it doesn’t matter how good it is - people would gladly explore a worse product because they see it as lower risk.
That’s the reality of where America is at the moment. There are many Americans on Hacker News (if not the majority) and naturally the merits of the product that America produces are being discussed, and its superiority is front and center.
This viewpoint is not relevant to the rest of the world. We don’t want the US’ stuff anymore and the only thing that can save that relationship is full software control. If America wants to make sales it needs to adjust to that expectation, or buyers are going elsewhere.
The argument is missing the forest for the trees - the relationship is more important than the product itself. The sooner that is acknowledged the more likely a political course correction is possible. Otherwise, sure, you might see a few short term F-35 sales conclude. But the purchasing will stop as soon as it can.
The F35 was an enormously expensive program only possible by increasing the production run through sales to partners/allies. It was predicated on a defense model currently burning down.
The vast majority of the comments I am reading on this site are not stating this. The vast majority, even the Americans, are agreeing that this is a bad decision. Unsure where you got this from.
I think he is referring to the F-35 only here. On military discussion forums it is the consensus that the F-35 is superior to everything else out there with the only exception being that the F-22 has superior air to air combat capabilities.
There is currently no drone that can replace everything the F-35 does. There might be one in the future, and it will likely be the most expensive aircraft ever made (see the two NGAD programs' unmanned components)
If the rest of the world doesn’t trust us in relation to this conflict it should be because we backed a coup of Ukraine’s democratically elected government and baited Russia into a proxy war.
Yes because only the USA has agency in this world. Russia didn't choose to invade and Ukrainians didn't choose to defend themselves. As someone from Europe this lack of perspective you showing here is exactly why we are tired of the US atm.
I’d say you lack perspective, this war started in 2014 not when Russia crossed the border. Russia’s agency isn’t going to extend to ignoring existential threats.
And now you're back-tracking on it so yes, US is extremely unreliable as an ally. I mean nobody is surprised you had some ulterior motive and undermined your geo-political enemies. It's the abandonment of those you supported that hurts US image.
Sweden will reportedly be supplying Ukraine with Saab-built Gripen fighters.[1][2] Maybe. Apparently Sweden has been holding off on transfer of 14 Gripens while Ukraine was learning to use and service F-16s.
The Gripen has advantages for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft, with lower maintenance demands and lower operating cost. It can operate from very basic airstrips and roads. Saab boasts about this.[3] Their pitch mentions that servicing an aircraft between missions requires just one trained tech assisted by five other workers. The USAF likes to operate from big, well-equipped, secure air bases, and US aircraft tend to be designed for that environment.
The US has, in the past, tried to discourage other countries from buying the Gripen, to protect US manufacturers. That sales advantage just disappeared.
Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.
The comments in this thread freak me out. Either the world's media has brainwashed the population into believing America is failing and the 'right' is evil/dumb, or I'm totally delussioned (as an American) for seeing mostly good in what the current administration is doing. Both are terrifying.
So in the article, they talk about the AN/ALQ-131 jammer. It needs to be updated by the US, to keep up with the Russia counter measures, that's what's stopping. At least the F-16 donated by Denmark will most likely have pylons from Terma (ECIPS), which should work with the CJS from Leonardo (ECIPS/CJS).
Shouldn't be to hard for Europe to make the required pylons for the planes who don't have the ECIPS and for those that do, some of them might already have CJS installed.
It's a problem for sure, but it's a manageable one.
Well it's always good to be specific, but I think it was the only thing that the US did for the F-16, wasn't it? They didn't exactly support sending planes in the first place. And it's not gonna be the last wrench the US will throw into Ukraine's (and Europe's) gears. It all piles up.
And the article itself appears to be making some logical leaps. It says it's getting its information from a Forbes article, but the information in the Forbes article is simply this[1]:
> But the Russian air force could sidestep the jamming by reprogramming their radars to operate at slightly different frequencies. Under Biden, the USAF team might’ve kept pace with Russian adaptation by constantly adjusting the AN/ALQ-131s own frequencies. Under Trump, Ukrainian airmen are stuck with pods whose programming may soon be out of date.
Some people were asked why this got flagged, by I think there's some justification for that given the fact that it's a misleading headline for an article editorializing another article, and that most people here used it as a jumping off point to talk about politics and not what was actually being discussed.
When totalitarian governments all start applauding what you're doing, using what you're doing as a distraction from a bad domestic situation as well as a justification for their dictatorships, you should know that something is totally screwed up.
Yes, I'm talking about the totalitarian governments of China and Russia.
To be fair to China, even they are "appalled" by what Trump is doing to cause chaos with Europe and to abandon Ukraine by holding talks about Ukraine without Ukraine:
Yup that's the idea. It's not going to run away from that police liability very soon. Probably in 5-10 years I think. Actually already happening right now in Myanmar.
Let's all be honest here. At the end of the day, what China wants is for everyone to shut the F up and buy a big screen TV.
Preferably on credit.
Anything that moves the world towards that goal will receive China's tacit support. Trump's moves are seen to move the world away from that goal, so we're seeing some signs of discomfort coming from China.
But believe me, it ain't because they're concerned about Ukraine or freedom or "ideals". Or even because they do or do not want to be world police.
We can't think about their goals in Western terms because the fundamentals of the thinking are just completely different.
I view it as China valuing stability. They want to control their interests, but countries like Russia or the post-Trump U.S. make long-term planning hard because you can’t assume rational decisions by the other major players.
Ah yes, the only country in the world whose array of official foreign policies includes a "no limits partnership" with russia.
The statement of the named Chinese official is either a psyop, or he is, in the parlance of intelligence agencies, "going native". I'm leaning towards the former hypothesis.
How about the ‘totalitarian’ governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar — do they get a pass? What about NATO member and EU hopeful Turkey? Has India joined the ‘Evil Club’ yet? Is Israel’s treatment of Arabs a shining example of democracy in action?
For many Westerners, ‘totalitarian’ just means ‘a country that has something we want but won’t give it up for free.’ If you're useful to the right people, you can treat women as second-class citizens or violently repress minorities—no problem, business as usual.
Maybe get off your high horse and admit that moral outrage tends to be selective.
20% of Israel citizenship is Arab, they get equal rights. Parliamentary representatives etc. they even get affirmative action in getting higher education.
Is it perfect? No
Half the country is fighting the other half to keep us a western democracy.
But every time ignorants post half baked opinions and paint us as pure evil, more ppl here say, fuck it.
I have Israeli friends across the spectrum (except maybe ultra-orthodox, but including Ukrainian/Russian olim). I also have friends from Lebanon (not even Arabs). They all share different stories, many of them very ugly ones, — and not just about Palestinians. And many of them are Jewish and critical of Jewish policies.
I know plenty of Israelis who are genuinely trying, and there are many of liberal-minded people with their conscience absolutely in the right place. I don't want to badmouth any of them.
My point is — if the same level of "trying" happened elsewhere (like in Xinjiang), Americans and Europeans would instantly brand it the worst kind of totalitarianism.
It's astonishing how the same first-rank predators who've been devouring the world for 500 years now posture as moral messiahs. And that's coming from me — one of them.
Don't let anecdotes shape your perception of reality. I have a feeling you're not familiar enough with the details.
Parent is correct. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs who generally enjoy equal rights. They are members of Knesset, they are judges, they are in tech, they are in academia. Some of them serve in the IDF (though that's an area that can still use improvement).
It's as far from totalitarianism as can be. And there's plenty of that in the world your Americans and Europeans let slide when it's in their interest. Most of the world is not free and democratic: https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel
"Jewish policies"? What's that?
Ask your friends from Lebanon what happened to the Christian majority that used to exist in that country? Or what happened to the Jews that used to live there?
My Lebanese friends are Armenian Gregorians, so I tend to consider their perspective relatively impartial — though, as you rightly noted, it remains anecdotal.
As for 'Jewish policies', there are, of course, issues around settlers, the West Bank, and Gaza. My own view on Gaza doesn't favour any particular side - it's a deeply complex and painful topic, and I recognise the trauma is still fresh. But I was referring to a different angle. Many of my Israeli friends are deeply frustrated by the influence of the ultra-Orthodox community and the state policies shaped by that influence - whether it's on women's rights, voting rights for Israeli Arabs, or broader social norms.
It's increasingly concerning given the explosive proportional growth of this community, which is on track to represent a third of Israel's population within a few decades.
And yet, the topic of the ultra-Orthodox and their influence is exceedingly rare in the West. I wouldn’t have been aware of it myself if I hadn’t had a personal experience. Years ago, a girl who had run away - literally - from a Hasidic community arrived in the UK, desperately looking for a way to stay. She was applying for jobs, including a position I had open. Meanwhile, she was staying with some soft-hearted Jewish family, working as a nanny for their kids. I still remember her eyes and the dedication — and desperation — in her voice.
My CTO at the time, an Israeli ex-IDF intelligence guy, soft-pushed me to hire her, even though she was absolutely unqualified. He told me, 'These people have enough resolve to become anything.' I didn’t budge. But I’ve never forgotten that experience.
These same people invoking the concept of totalitarianism to push their agenda are totally silent on the US allying with Al Queda in Syria. The concept that we have moral standards for foreign policy friends or enemies is a joke.
you are talking about (edit almost) a third of the entire human population, as if you know better. Reality says - random armchair Western Educated Individual Rich and Democratic does not rule the day for a third of humanity by claiming some political imperative.
More reality - the Muslim world is organized and very wealthy in spots. By confrontational and arrogant (see above) posturing and actions by Westerns, it drives power alliances to the Muslim world. So then there is one third of the actual population of the entire world, embracing the Muslim world economically and politically.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the backdrop economically for all parties is substantially about Oil and Gas. In the USA, the Oil and Gas interests have gained the upper hand, and they know very well how to apply it. Oil and Gas industry has all the capital and all the ambition to expand, fortify and entrench for the next multiple decades. It is rarely mentioned in the provocative and divisive social "news" that fills the media in the West each day.
The combined population of China and Russia is less than a fifth of the world (15-16 bn vs 80+ bn). Edit: should be 1.5-1.6 bn vs 8 bn.
I'm only discussing Trump's behaviour and its effect on totalitarian governments, I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the rest of what you wrote.
I think the recent series of Trump's actions against Ukraine have failed to send a message to totalitarian governments that matches his own words. This has nothing to do with how much of the population Trump rules.
"Such is the concern that debate has turned to whether the US maintains secret so-called kill switches that would immobilise aircraft and weapons systems. While never proven, Richard Aboulafia, managing director at consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, said: “If you postulate the existence of something that can be done with a little bit of software code, it exists.”
In practice, it may not even matter because of how already reliant advanced combat aircraft and other sophisticated weapons — such as anti-missile systems, advanced drones and early warning aircraft — are on US spare parts and software updates."
There you go, finally mainstream press and politicians are mentioning the kill switch.
Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.
Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer.
Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars.
So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.
That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.
With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.
Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.
Not just small European countries, but all European countries that do not have their own nukes, which is all except France. The issue is, they’ll have to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty for that (except for the UK, I think), and once an otherwise respected country does that, the floodgates would be open in the world. The other problem is that such a decision would be very divisive in the European country’s electorate, and therefore highly problematic on its domestic political front. This is simply not likely to happen.
A more realistic outcome is that French nukes will be stationed in other European countries. But France is also not willing to give up exclusive control over those nukes, and the next French government could very well be far-right, and thus become as unreliable as the current US government. It’s a difficult situation.
> small European countries do now have to consider nukes
It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too. 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example.
In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.
The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.
The article is written to give the reader the impression only the US can reprogram the jamming system and the comments seem to mostly be taking it at face value.
In the very Forbes article the OP's article cites it links to info about this F-16 reprogramming effort[1], showing it was collaboration between the US/Norway/Denmark and that the US electronic warfare team wasn't familiar with the system, yet within two weeks they say they managed to reprogram them to meet the initial deadline.
> The 68th EWS assembled a dedicated team comprised of a mixture of seasoned experts and bright, young engineers to approach the reprograming challenge. Their first task was to understand the unfamiliar EW system and how to reprogram it.
> Relying on data provided by Denmark and Norway, then adapting new processes and approaches to the usual process, the team was able to understand the system and start their work.
> After understanding the system, the 68th EWS deviated again from normal methods and sent its members overseas to a partner-nation lab to collaboratively develop and test the system alongside coalition teammates.
We would love to see Europe develop a military spine for once, I’m excited to see how long it takes before they come crawling back under the wing of the US.
Also, who wants to make deals with someone who can't be trusted to follow through. What's the point? Would you sign a 10 year deal with someone who keeps ripping it up and changing their mind every 3 weeks? What's the point?
This belief is flat out wrong and is completely oblivious to the current geopolitical landscape. US is likely to get sanctioned by its prior allies in the near future and you need to wake up.
I think losing the European market will do a lot of harm to the US, especially their precious tech giants, plus they'll lose creditors. The $$$ won't be what it used to be, and once that falls...
But the whole point of Musk and Thiel is for the USA to lose its power. You can't coerce large institutions, but you can do that with small ones, so they want decentralization, small zones. There they can buy power, and do whatever they please. For this, the federal USA has to be upended.
What specifically are you referring to during the WW2? I'm sure it wasn't always black and white, but I think in general the US and western Europe were fairly good allies.
Personally I think the reason the US got strong, especially economically, is because of stability, rule of law, global trade and economy of scale due to large enough population. Not because of specific incidents of screwing someone.
I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII. Then every country in Europe, Russia was in shambles from the war. Japan got its expansionist hopes crushed by two atomic bombs, US’ new “don’t fuck we me I’ve got a delete everything button”.
Every other country was either recovering from being a colony, or not as far along industrially as US
>> I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII.
This is the wrong view. The US got strong because it was able to convert its considerable industrial might to wartime footing within a very short timespan (which was frankly an incredible undertaking), and also because its geographic isolation allowed it to focus almost fully on offense.
> Personally I think the reason the US got strong, especially economically, is because of stability, rule of law, global trade and economy of scale due to large enough population. Not because of specific incidents of screwing someone.
WWII has had free reign to screw with dozens of countries since the end of WWII. And they did. But it wasn’t your[1] country so then it doesn’t count. Which is high school clique logic.
[1] Except if you were a politically active left-wing organizer post-WWII. Then the US and government-backed groups in Europe could have screwed with you through Operation Gladio, for example in Italy.[2]
[2] This is just an example. And I’m not terribly educated on the matter. I can’t learn about this by watching the tellie. So it takes more effort than the stupor that a slogan like 100 years of building trust hints at.
The biggest empire in the world paid for the US to re-tool its economy to produce arms for them. Later on the USA provided loans to continue that expansion.
Then Japan entered the war and it got personal.
Sure bretton-woods was a humiliation, but the Marshall plan was there to stop those humiliated allies from going communist.
If I was a defense minister in Western Europe right now I'd go looking at whatever the Dassault, Saab or other European based defense tech can provide. I'd also immediately halt any pilot training in the US. I can see shares in Raytheon, Lockheed, etc. taking losses in the next couple of quarters, I mean here we have a president that won't even spend money on its own defense tech for export, and is now actively shutting down that export market.
Today it's Ukraine and F35s, who and what will it be in a year? I suppose European governments are taking a long hard look at strategic dependencies on the US right now, like the whole
economy running on top of Microsoft and Google and other US-made SaaS. If all of that went dark at once, I honestly don't know how some of the larger companies I know could keep operating. They all have fallbacks for critical infrastructure obviously but those are US-made, too...
About half of the US companies over a certain size run on ERP software from an European vendor. And it is not trivial at all to change that, even if they wanted to.
Aside from life-saving medicine, I was thinking that the un-availability (not 'available with tariffs' but 'we're not selling it to the US anymore') of Ozempic in the US might become a political problem, maybe more so than many other trade-war hits. Maybe it's easy to manufacture it locally but the time-gap until it's up and running might be too much to swallow...
I think having Greenland annexed might also be a problem for the Danish. Europe might subsidize Novo Nordisk's losses, switch to distributing the meds all throughout Europe. And it seems the loss of such a society-transformative drug (and having millions of people gaining back all their lost weight would be a difficult/untenable political position for this administration. Just surprised not to see this much in the current news.
Sibling in thread says there's already an US alternative, anyway.
I don't think that would end up being a political problem. It'd just get spun as the evil communist Europeans trying to destroy America with their traitor liberal collaborators and used as justification for passing the FAT IS FREEDOM Act, which subsidizes butter production and eliminates capital gains tax and the library of Congress.
Russia wouldn't know what to do with them, given that they effectively do not develop weapon systems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. China probably has decent enough espionage they don't really need them, although it might make a nice political overture.
And to clarify, this was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment implying that the US will become friendly enough with the two big autocracies of the world so they will officially buy arms from US defense companies (in which case Denmark can pass those F-35s to them).
For the record, I dearly hope it doesn't come to this, but right now I'm not sure.
Extremely good is getting a bit over the top. The Gripen was designed in the 80's and it shows. It cannot really compare with something like the F-22 or 35 on anything substantial except cost. And if you're optimizing for cost, it becomes a question of how many pilots you're willing to lose to make it fulfill realistic roles.
Can probably also use other missiles but I agree we need to get rid of all US dependencies and I guess a lot of effort is going on now to see what can be done to get rid of the American engine.
Maybe a cooperation with French (Safran) or British (Rolls Royce) industry could remove their reliance on the Americans? (Not suggesting overnight but over the next 2 - 7 years.)
The best medium range missile usable from a Gripen is the Meteor, which is a European product. Of course the issue is that production isn’t high enough.
The Chinese and Russian would certainly have provided continued support if they were on the other end of a conflict, differently from the Evil Bad American Empire.
Economic sanctions alone would be enough - notice how Trump pauses shooting at our collective feet every time Wall Street reacts negatively? – but also note that our adventures in the Middle East failed after trillions of dollars because it’s much easier to blow things up than it is to build stable countries. A far less competent crew is not going to sway civilians more effectively and I doubt that they’re going to convince many Americans to personally help colonize Greenland.
Most of them have had double digits growth in their stock price over the last few days[0]:
"Britain’s BAE Systems rose by 15% on Monday, Germany’s Rheinmetall gained 14%, France’s Thales increased 16% and Italy’s Leonardo was also up 16%. In London the surge in defence related shares helped to push the FTSE 100 to a new record high"
I think you misunderstand why exactly the USSR's weapon production hurt them. There were a number of circumstances that were specific to the Soviets that made their decisions uniquely self-destructive:
1. They already had an enormous weapon stockpile from the 60s and 70s that was becoming rapidly outdated, and was manufactured with few basically no limit on the unit count being made, resulting in tens-of-thousands of surplus weapons being funded by the state and the economy bending to support an oversized MIC.
2. Soviet Russia had a struggling economy in the 60s and 70s, and an almost nonfunctional one in the 80s. The idea of developing new digital weapons was basically trashed, and the "next generation" Soviet weaponry became the surplus analog stuff they stockpiled. Research and prototyping ground to a halt as Russia lost self-sufficiency on the technology that mattered.
3. The Soviet-Afghanistan war weakened the USSR's traditional force composition to the point that it was doubtful they could fight a traditional war, even with a relatively untrained adversary. Thousands of Soviet soldiers died to prove that Russia's doctrine wasn't going to win a pitched battle against a well-funded enemy.
Europe already avoided over-arming themselves like the USSR, they have a modernized economy, and they aren't fighting proxy wars against forces they can't beat. As an American citizen I'm more concerned with our own country resting on it's laurels, struggling to modernize it's supply chain and threatening to fight wars in the Levant with no clear goal.
I'm not sure how this plays out as Putin setting a trap? This is probably going to be a bit expensive for European taxpayers, myself included, but we'll get by.
Russia on the other hand may have issues similar to the 80s/90s if we get serious with sanctions on shipping oil.
Just like everything else he’s done, I’m not remotely surprised. I wonder if people realize where this all ends, and are taking appropriate precautions.
Well he’s been very vocal about NATO countries increasing their defense contributions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the US needs to sell all the weapons.
"Trump Tells Europe to Buy American Arms to Keep NATO Strong". [1]
"U.S. President Donald Trump complained Thursday that his country's decades-old security treaty with Japan is nonreciprocal, as he steps up pressure on allies to increase defense spending and buy more American products." [2]
We're not increasing defense spending to appease Trump though. We're increasing defense spending because we realize a need for strategic independence from the US. Because for the comming 4 years, it's obvious that the US won't be a reliable partner, and might even be an adversary.
It makes no sense for us to buy American if we need strategic independence from the US.
Sometimes I wonder if he's a secret genius that leverages his own stupidity.
E.g. he might be solely responsible for getting the Liberals reelected in Canada, something that a year ago you would have thought was absolutely impossible. But Trump is so deeply hated in Canada now that every time he mocks Trudeau it makes the Liberals more popular. Liberal support, which before Trump was elected was so low as to make a Conservative election win seem inevitable, has skyrocketed since Trump took office. It's now pretty much a dead heat, and that's before the Liberals have elected their new leader.
So I don't know, maybe he just really, really wanted the Liberals to get reelected and he pulled off the only way to make it happen. Maybe he felt sorry that Canadians seemed so internally divided, so he threatened to annex Canada to unite us.
Or maybe he's a moron that can't even understand cause and effect.
Yes, but he said that in the context of buying American products. He wanted the American economy to benefit from arms sales, not a more independent Europe.
This isn’t “Europe” pushing for a war, that’s solely Russia. That’s also why this policy reversal is so shocking: until recently, pretty much everyone accepted the post-WWII consensus that the United States helping to stabilize Europe was better for everyone. Trump throwing in with Russia is not only a betrayal of our allies but also dramatically increasing the risk of war since it tells Russia and anyone else so inclined that wars of aggression are viable as long as you make it financially rewarding for him.
EU is being threatened with tariffs because we’re not buying „enough” things from the US, including among others arms. The „suggestion” has always been to spend that money in the USA.
Yeah, but EU countries donated weapons like the F-16, which were bought from the US in the first place. So now we have to use another source for those weapon systems and the revenue/jobs won't end up in the US.
What exactly was Europe’s problem? Did they not invite war by promising to provide only ineffective assistance to Ukraine? Which European nation does not have nukes? Which cannot flatten Moscow? Yet none even implied a willingness to do what it would take to prevent an invasion. Either win or lose. There is no honor in sending millions of young men to die.
I wonder when European founders start switching from Azure/AWS/Google to domestic alternatives. I feel the risk of being thrown out all of the sudden increases every day.
Guess where our network gear vendors are? (Currently using mostly Arista, but also some Juniper core routers, used to have Cisco gear too).
Guess where our OS is being sold from? (Even when use Linux, much of it is RHEL).
We use VMWare products (yep, US), and Openshift (RHEL, also US).
We use F5 and A10 load balancers. Both US.
There's sooo much off-the-shelf hardware, software and firmware from the US; replacing one of them would be a big to huge integration project; replacing them all would be an endless nightmare, especially if the only alternative is from China. If there even is a practical alternative.
So is it going to be Kubernetes as the IaC stack from now on? I'm asking as a heads up as I foresee a potential major demand for infrastructure migrations in the future.
Not unless its heavily modified to scale past 10k nodes sensibly. its security/secrets model also needs a boatload of work before you can think about hosting untrusted parties on your kit.
I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up:
This is a tragedy for the free world, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. [President Donald] Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, because he will not defend you, he will impose more tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories, while supporting the dictators who invade you.
I’ve thought for a while now that the U.S. has spent a long time building up subjective resources in goodwill, trust, reliability, etc. (you can certainly bicker about the details here). But with Trump, they’re cashing in on all of that. They’re selling the laptops and office chairs (sometimes quite literally) as a business strategy.
I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest.
My concern is that the consequences of the current strategy are too far into the future to act as a sufficient deterrent. It’ll feel like it actually works for a time. But then eventually everyone hates you and adapts to exclude you.
Nothing like a bully POTUS to bring out all the rose-colored glasses praising the US for something that it never was. Set in the context of a representative of neocolonial France speaking about “the free world”.
I don’t understand the causality. Trump reaches a new low and the slogans about the benevolent past reaches a new, even more naive high.
> I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest.
Does the US have total control?
They sure have wide influence, but influence is different from control. The power to take something diminishes when you use it.
That power has been given because there was trust that the US would not fuck you over. That agreement seems to have been canceled by the US, therefore that power can be removed, too.
Europe is both financially bankrupt and incompetent, with poor governance continuously hindered by the ambition of each country within the “union”. It will take decades at best for the EU to be competitive, assuming it won’t disintegrate before which is also a very real outcome.
So, as a European, what would you want to see happen? Do whatever we can to appease Trump, living as a subject, all because resistance is futile?
Don't overestimate the US military industrial complex. Their biggest skill is lobbying, and selling massively expensive 'super weapons' that are too expensive to use.
What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine? Ukraine is not and has not been a US ally. It's been used to make certain elements within our government and power structure very rich. It's been used to develop bioweapons we don't want to make on our lands. That's it.
The US is not the global policeman and the US taxpayer is not the global defense financier.
Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
> The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
Which was negotiated as part of a package to prevent nuclear proliferation being required to provide security assurances. America's treatment of Ukraine will be remembered when diplomatic disarmament is proposed to North Korea and Iran.
Thank you. That memo is not a treaty, ratified by our Senate. Second, Russia clearly broke the agreement. Third it only states that the US is obligated to provide assistance if a threat or act of aggression where nuclear weapons are used. As long as Russia does not use nuclear weapons (or threatens them!), we have no obligation in this agreement.
Also it does not specify assistance. Clearly the US has already assisted Ukraine in defending from the invasion from Russia. And clearly the US people are tired of assisting them. We have no alliance with Ukraine.
I'm not saying the US is bound by international law to follow this verbatim. I am saying that our stance here is exactly the motivation required to promote nuclear proliferation to any country that demands others respect their borders.
Iran and North Korea now have no diplomatic path to nuclear disarmament. America has no credible homeland ICBM defense, either, so we're playing a very dangerous game.
Over 6,000 Ukrainians performed military service in Iraq and Kuwait, as allies of the US. They signed the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia/the USSR has been a main or the main enemy of the US for decades and Ukraine is doing the US a service standing up to them. Why do you think the US even had an $800bn military budget for decades?
>In 2016, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed to a 5-year concept of partnership that focuses on developing a robust and capable Ukranian military and reforming the Ukrainian defense sector to be in line with NATO standards and principles.
...and a lot more. There are five main points.
The point is, the US was heavily actively involved in Ukraine for decades. They were not a bystander.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. US prosperity is rooted in its overwhelming military might. People dare not take it on for fear of reprisal. Those who occasionally try are quickly reminded through reciprocal action. US companies benefit greatly from secure operations and relatively laissez-faire domestic economic policies to grow into world behemoths.
Don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that your safety and security are tied to some "Kumbaya good feeling" that random strangers have towards you. The stick may be silent most of the time, but everyone knows it's there.
The stick being silent only works if people believe you won't randomly start swinging it if they cooperate, and people trusting you not to swing wouldn't matter if you didn't have a stick.
What’s the motivation, if the Russians have the strong cards in this upcoming peace negotiation the current administration feels the need to weaken the Ukrainian side equipment? Slice of the minerals?
He forces Ukraine to take a bad deal by removing their ability to walk away. That deal involves more revenue for him and ensures that he gets to tell his voters that he kept his promise to end the war. His first impeachment was over trying to extort Ukraine’s assistance in election rigging so the humiliation is an extra bonus.
Trump/Musk/Republicans have taken the side of a fascist dictator Putin. Every recent move wrt Ukraine has benefitted Russia. Even if it means betraying democratic allies and decades long alliances.
People have different idea but roughly the Ukrainian plan seems to be hold the current lines approximately, destroy Russian assets and work on Russia collapsing economically to the extent they have to pull back a bit like their Afghanistan experience.
I am confused why you ask this of the proponents. The proponents think that Russia is performing horrendous war crimes and must be stopped from encroaching further. We see massacres such as Bucha where Russia had a couple of days and indiscriminately butchered innocent civilians and realized that there is no other way but to keep fighting to stop Russia from taking more territory and lives.
My question is more looking for what changes to the strategy are proposed? Arming Ukraine hasn't stopped Russia from these crimes so far. There's certainly some turning point point where US, or NATO, involvement will be seen as a declaration is war against Russia and it's allies, right?
Another commenter suggest sent a video about this that I'll watch later, I suspect the answer lies there, but thought I'd share with you so you can have some understanding of what someone who sees both side's surface level plans as confusing and problematic .
What encroachment do you mean? There isn't much encroachment other than sabotage. Perhaps some financing of undermining political parties.
There was significant encroachment of eastern Europe, but that has slowed down due to attention going towards the Ukraine war.
The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that Russia has as little benefit from their invasion as possible. Luckily this is effectively wholly compatible with Ukrainian goals.
I wish Europe and the US would have just put their foot down and kicked out Russia swiftly and decisively in 2022.
Rather the have adopted the doctrine of "Ukraine can't lose, but Ukraine may not win". Always supplying just enough arms to keep the Ukrainian front from collapsing not to "stir up" Russia.
Doesn't seem like that would have made anything better though. I thought the general consensus was that direct action would have just escalated things?
I watched a video recently that discussed all the grudges against the West/NATO Russia (Putin) has been holding onto since the mids 90s that makes them feel justified now.
Drain Russia in the war. Make them pay for every day they are invading. Make them pay in human lives, make them pay in losy industrial output. Make them pay in economic welfare. Not just on Ukrainian soil.
If at all possible, take back any Ukrainian territory. Reduce whatever gain they got from this invasion. But even if the current line stands, the more Russia can be made to bleed, the less it will think that war can be a net postive for them.
You realize all the printed money goes towards European and US arms manufacturers and just creates jobs in Europe and the US?
Even the billions in humanitarian support spend in Europe are mostly just housing refugees from Ukraine in Europe thus flows to landlords and supermarkets in Europe.
This war in Ukraine is costing us pennies for each dollar that Russia is wasting in the blood fields of Ukraine.
It doesnt create jobs in US. It is another bulk order of factory line-items for those already ingratiated with a comfy MIC contract. No one benefits except the neo-cons and the ones already with their feet up.
Europe's bill may create jobs in Europe, if it was genuine.
>billions in humanitarian support spend in Europe are mostly just housing refugees from Ukraine in Europe thus flows to landlords and supermarkets in Europe.
I am sure printing money to then distribute to those with real estate property to house migrants is doing well for your housing/immigrant crises.
>This war in Ukraine is costing us pennies for each dollar
Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.
Now that the state-level propaganda machine is starting to wear down, the world is realizing that America wants America First.
> Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.
What does this even mean?
And do you realize that most of American GDP prowess in the last 40 years was driven by running a trade deficit and letting the world loan the money back to the US?
Trump just wants the war to end. Ukraine doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory under bad terms, so they won't make a deal. Putin is more than happy to take a deal that means they win. Trump thinks that if he weakens Ukraine then they'll be more willing to take a bad deal. He also doesn't like Ukraine or Zelenskyy, so has no particular desire to do them a favour.
Ukraine already surrendered chunk of its territory few years ago. You think this time it will be different and Russia won't try to take Ukraine again once it rebuilds its military potential?
The difference is that in the future (assuming the mineral deal goes through), there would be US citizens operating mineral franchises on Ukrainian territory. So if Russia harmed them in the future, we would be drawn into an actual war.
The US' contribution has been incredibly significant and the war would have gone very differently without US support but the idea that the US has contributed most money is false and driven by hubris.
There's various ways of tracking support and by many metrics there are European countries that have given more than the US once you account for population & GDP. It gets more complicated for EU members as the EU has given financial support, so the largest funders of the EU, like France, have paid proportionally more via the EU than directly.
Yes, Europe has given more aid overall. And certainly much more per capita in many countries. The US has given more military aid, but not that much more.
I'm sceptical. Recent movements in Germany point into the opposite direction or rather a continuation of wishful thinking. Yes, a lot of debt-funded defence investment is coming. They also promised some investment in "infrastructure". At the same time the debt increase will delay reforms that are overdue for 20 years and longer. There were already calls that, now, with all brakes off, we can increase rather than curb spending on the welfare state. As it currently looks, the productivity gap with the US and Asia will widen rather than shrink. A very disappointing development to say the least.
European manufacturing is more productive than US manufacturing. The US productivity advantage comes almost entirely from the US' strong tech (as in software) sector.
Tech (as in software) is what's being cut off to Ukraine, and tech (as in software, MEMS gyros, and GNSS) is how Ukraine keeps blowing up US$3M T-90 tanks with three or four US$500 FPV drones. So I think it's highly relevant to the question of sovereignty.
It's largely kind of an international open-source effort, but there is a lot of crucial hardware that is only available from China, yes. Until this week I think Anduril was in a good position to become an alternative to China in two to four years, but this move strongly undermines their credibility overseas.
One example is pensions. For demographic reasons the state pension system is underfunded for years, a situation that is projected to become worse. One solution would be to increase contributions which are already sky-high and make working or opening a business a lot less attractive in Germany. Another is to freeze pensions. Guess what happened? Germany's old government increased the contribution level starting in January this year [1]. Additional, a pension raise [2] has recently been announced and the newly-found debt will provide funding for additional benefits for pensioners [3]. It more and more feels like a gerontocracy.
Germany has slightly higher productivity per hour worked than the US. There's a productivity gap between the US and European economies as a whole (which is a relatively recent phenomenon dating back to around 2005), but Germany is quite productive.
I hate to be the guy, but I find myself having to point this out to all of my doom-minded American friends. Yes, Trump is a criminal idiot, but one positive, probably unintended effect is that the world becomes more, in the words of Taleb, anti-fragile. As an American I am thrilled that Europe is becoming more united, more pragmatic, and more self-reliant. Our relationship is not over, it is just changing, and Europe is experiencing a long-needed renaissance.
Of course Europe always had some ability to defend itself, but I think it's clear that some of that ability was outsourced to the US(with reciprocal benefits for the US, but still). Yes, this introduces some redundancy into the Western sphere, but that's a good thing.
Also, according to Perun, if Europe collectively raises defense spending to somewhere near 4,5% (I think, check last Sundays episode) it will outspend not only US but US and China together.
Yet Russia has more brigades, more artillery and artillery shells, more nukes. The comment above is right. Europe needs to wake the hell up and increase military production 10X, even if temporarily.
If Russians take Ukraine, they will force their population to attack the next country. Just like it happened with men of Donbass.
lol Russia are barely making progress in Ukraine, and have effectively been in a stalemate since the 2022 invasion - while currently shipping back their wounded vets to the frontline on donkeys. Hadn't it been for Trump, Russia would effectively go bankrupt before being able to cross the Dnipro river.
The only real capability Russia has, are their nuclear weapons and other long-range weapons - and even with the latter, they have been struggling.
FWIW, I worked in the defense industry, and even before the invasion Russia has been viewed as a paper tiger. They're good at coming up with novel ideas and weaponry, but for whatever reason, struggle to successfully get things from the drawing board to operational weapons.
s/are/were barely making progress. The ~20% [1] reduction [2] in total supplies to the ukraine front line lead to the logical prediction that frontline dynamics would be impacted. Early indicators suggest this prediction is materializing. [3].
The point stands that Europe needs to arm itself. Europe needs to be able to defend itself without the US.
Indeed there is slight toxicity to calling this 'manning up'. Especially towards men, where it signals that men should be strong enough to defend themselves. Which wronly reinforces the idea that capability in violence is a positive trait in men.
Thank you for that understanding and nuanced response. It actually gives me great comfort to see someone communicate so well in today's climate.
I of course agree with the point about Europe and you've beautifully captured the reason why the phrasing gave me an uneasy feeling. The line between the necessary reaction and over-reaction is terrifyingly small and I hope for the best for all of us.
It's reductive, essentialist and prescriptive. It's fine for someone to defend themselves but saying that "men should be strong enough" to do so gets quite murky. Would you say Stephen Hawking was less of a man because he was unable to defend himself? Is someone who defends themselves by de-escalating a situation through dialogue less of a man than someone who uses their strength? The above statement implies these things but I certainly don't think they're true.
Toxic is your word and I'm not sure the EU is a "weak sausage." I think it's remarkable that so many people within the EU have been able to co-exist peacefully for so long and work together in developing systems that give them other options than the kinds of violence we saw for so much of the past. Would you really point to Russia and say that they're in a stronger position because their leader exhibits some loosely defined manly ideals?
The fact that it demands violence off men. As my very next sentence states.
Demanding that a 'masculine man' is capable of violence is making men ... more violent. Men being too violent is a decently big societal problem. Hence, the idea that men should be able to defend themselves (and others) is harming society.
A man that can protect their family from a criminal or home intruder is harming society? Men with enough balls and sense of duty that join armed forces, so society is able to protect itself, are harming society?
If I was Putin or other adversary of the West, I would pour tons of money into promotion of this self-castrating idea.
They didn't say those things did they? They said "the idea that men should be able to defend themselves (and others) is harming society." The idea that they are duty-bound to these things by their manhood, not that they choose to do so. People should feel free to make their own reasoned choices.
You mean: European militaries haven’t done their historical norm, which is starting wars that kill horrific numbers of civilians. The only serious militarized power in that side of Eurasia is Russia, and what are they doing? Killing horrific numbers of civilians.
Seems like the reasonable goal would be to embargo Russia until they disarm like the other adults in the region.
What even is masculine/feminine energy? I was making reference to Zuckerberg saying Facebook needed more masculine energy as it seemed to chime with the idea of "manning up." But honestly it feels as disconcerting to see people respond as if this is an actual thing, in as much as it would if HN were to take a sudden interest in astrology.
Today, masculine energy means right wing and feminine or beta energy means left wing.
If you don’t believe me, go read up on the genderfication of politics in the last 10 years. Women are from Venus and men are from mars. There’s no reconciling them.
Yeah come on. Barroso, Draghi or Scholz were no better. Draghi maybe a bit better, Scholz way worse. But of course why look at facts when you have a simple narrative that allow you to not think.
You don't read books by women? What? Maybe if you did you would understand how big of a role the socio-political effects of European patriarchy had in whatever veracity the rest of your assertions had.
This is all pretty off topic and not the time to get into it but I find what you're saying pretty wild. Of course there's nothing wrong with being a man but it's still a good idea to listen to women's experiences and learn from books they've written. There are all sorts of unfair power structures in the world and it's good to learn about them, especially at this juncture in history, or else we run the risk of making the same mistakes again and again.
Of course I read books by women. I would only encourage you to research if the blood, sweat, and tears of your ancestors are the "socio-political effects of European patriarchy" or just people who build a home that attracts people from all over the world.
Is no one in Europe not skeptical of the increase in defense spending? Things have costs, that money is having to come from somewhere.
Is increasing traditional military spending the way to go in the 21st century? If the decision is left to military leaders,they might spend massive amounts of money preparing to fight yesterday's war.
If you set aside alarmist positions, it may very well possible that Russia has no interests in military conflict with rest of Europe beyond Ukraine.
In that case what is the best thing Europeans could do?
There is danger and risk in military over spending at this juncture, and Europe needs to be level headed about it.
We have opened for €800 billions in investments through the EU.
So, no.
Calling anything "alarmist positions" now is just uninformed; Putin has said Russia wants the USSR territory back, their entire industry is now turned to produce weapons, their schools are "Putin-Jugend", they are currently invested in the first "great war" since WW2.
And the US isn't just getting out of Europe - they have gone full turncoat.
This is an unmitigated disaster for both US (citizens) and EU, and the EU is trying to manage what they can.
If they succeed in Ukraine then they are free to re-arm. Meanwhile Trump has made it clear that article 5 is worthless, so the Baltics are there for the taking. As much as I'd like to say they can rely on the rest of NATO, I'm really unsure if the UK or France would be willing to sacrifice London or Paris for Tallinn or Vilnius.
It sounds like you're not keeping up on things. We know where the money is coming from. It's headline news daily in the financial press. What are you talking about? And yes, of course we need to defend ourselves.
Europe has benefited a lot from not having to pour tons of money into defense spending. Europeans will be hurting if their countries suddenly have to shift finances for this.
I think it’s much easier to just hunker down and appease the United States for four years and hope the next administrations are more merciful.
Maybe... but probably not. Having to divert investments from one part of the economy to another is not that much a big problem: Russia has been doing the same and they have an economy of war that works more or less (some say they are on the brink of collapse and yet, they are still there). So, Europe can totally rely way less on the US, they just have to change their priorities, and they'll adapt just as Russia has adapted. Thinking they cannot is really presumptuous, or even comptemptuous (and a lot of people have made the same mistake with Russia by the way). And yet, at the moment, the US think that way, not believing in soft power any more, but only in pure pressure or even blackmail. If history teaches one thing, it is that you always create your own ennemies (Versailles treaty comes to mind).
That is not what is happening. Listen to Ursula. She’s telling you what is happening. Eu countries are being “allowed” to go into debt without triggering eu debt procedures. It won’t be reinvestment. It will be dilution of currency though debt. Something all too familiar to Americans.
Correct. Interestingly enough, it will massively increase the supply of euro bonds, and probably pull in a bunch of cash that goes to US treasuries now.
If there's enough pan European bonds (which there won't be) then the reserve currency status of the dollar could be threatened.
Even if Trumpism is gone by 2028, nothing goes back to normal. We'll see the raise of ITAR-free weapons systems from Europe and Asian "former" US allies and cooperation around the US.
What Trump and MAGA people don't realize is that 11 carrier groups sailing around the seas alone are not that big a threat. Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) provide unsinkable airfields, supply depots for the US all over the world. They are massive power multiplier for the US military.
I'm not sure Denmark is going to cancel our F35 orders. From a security perspective, it's certainly in our interest to pretend this isn't a big deal. And that everything is normal.
But I'm not surprised that our prime minister recently did not leave out the possiblity of hosting nukes on Danish territory.
Given the theatre in the US one could even say we'll need nukes to defend Greenland.
Could there be an orchestrated effort by volunteers to replace what the Americans were doing or does this rely on intelligence insight the Americans have?
In country if 40 Million desperate people as educated as the Ukrainians there should be quite the talent pool to try to hack this.
Regarding flagging: I think the worry is that, with all the political news constantly generated by Donald in the white house, HN might get submerged by politics constantly rather than the hacker-related stuff we all come here for.
I disagree. The majority of HN readers are Americans and a vocal and active subset don’t like seeing articles which are critical of their “great” nation.
I respect your opinion, but as a non-American myself (Canadian), I also really don't like having my feed filled with whatever the last drama was that Donald stirred up. HN for me is an escape from other news outlets.
That and the discussions are basically devoid of any new info or insight. If you were to take a random comment from each of these threads, youd probably have a hard time telling which came from where.
True. This post is just being used as a reason to continue previous threads with very little connection to the submission. I am of two minds on this. The first is 'I want my life to be about cool tech and interesting ideas' and the second is 'This is a critical moment in history so people need to discuss it more than anything else'. At this exact moment I lean towards the latter so I think it is, unfortunately, important to get everyone out into discussion and action even in discussion forums like HN.
> This is a critical moment in history so people need to discuss it more than anything else
You may be correct on this, but I'm trying to keep in mind that we still have 4 more years of this and I think this may sorta be the new normal for the time being. I'd hate to see HN get distracted by every new drama Donald gets himself involved in till 2029.
Nuh uh! Hacker News told me that American businesses have the ultimate moral imperative to cease operations in any country that demands invasive control of my devices.
Surely my smartphone OEM would fight the entire American government before handing over my data.
And if the American defense sector wasn't bruised enough from the last month, Elon musk was on social media this weekend claiming he could collapse the Ukranian frontlines by disabling Starlink and insulting the Polish foreign minister for buying Starlink systems...
Hahahaha, do they even know what they are doing to their US hegemony?! This kind of short-term thinking leads to the US enemies laughing all their way into the bank. They don‘t even understand what they‘re losing here. If they don’t try to path-correct very soon this is the beginning of a gradual decline. Is the current U.S. leadership really that afraid? There is no reason to act like this otherwise. Or this is some very very incredibly smart way of ”peace through strength”. Go figure and good luck all.
What stops the Russians from reprogramming their radars to switch to a different frequency every 5 minutes as specified by a CSPRNG? It seems like it would make the manual reprogramming of jammers pointless.
I genuinely wish there was an understandable endgame for the USA. The USA seems to be throwing its weight around but I’m not entirely sure to what end. This headline/article is just one area where the US is behaving perplexingly.
I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees. Fine there’s at least a through line. However; by demonstrating that the US is willing to revoke access to this war material during an active shooting war over some ego thing they’re showing allies who’ve invested in the US military equipment that they’re vulnerable to suffer this same fate. Now Europe is turning hard away from US tech.
To some degree this is a good thing, I think, from USA’s POV. Trump has said it’s unfair USA spends the most on NATO and that member states should pay more (how many don’t hit the 2% target). However; the point was to spend their 2% GDP on American armaments. Now Europe is taking their demand and money and investing in domestic military equipment. Which will inevitably beg the question in the coming years if NATO, a US establishment, is to be made redundant?
This US administration can’t seem to have their cake and eat it too. They want money, demand for their goods, but every time they act out they drive away their business partners.
The clown in the oval office claimed we wouldn't help them. More Danish men died per capita in middle east because of article 5 than men from the US...
If that’s the case that “NATO as has existed is already over” then maybe it is wise for the USA to pull out. Maybe that’s the endgame for Europe? Europe defends Europe (or gets taken over by Russia I guess), and USA isn’t on the hook for its defense anymore.
NATO is there to make sure that the dollar is the dominant trading currency.
NATO is the reason why saudis are trading in dollars.
NATO is the reason that the US has credible nuclear deterrents
NATO is why america doesn't need to have a physical colonial empire in europe (otherwise it'd need to subjugate cyprus, and somewhere like saaremaa, and that costs a shit tonne of money)
NATO isn't about playing for defence of europe, its about keeping the USSR and russia far enough away to keep trading routes open.
Americans all have this attitude that theyre "on the hook" for everyone elses defence as if theyre the white knight defending the world against evil. Its more like the local mob tough guys who have been taking protection money for the last 40 years backed down when a rival gang finally decided to make a move
I'm American, and I don't have that view. So it's clearly not literally true.
So perhaps you mean that it's "mostly" true. Then I'd ask, what evidence do you have to support that? Is there some poll of public opinion you can refer to? That's something we could meaningfully discuss.
Actually, your view is true even if there exists even just one person with your view. In reality what matters is the distribution of views. Furthermore, what matters is the distribution of views by the decision makers because those will be divorced from public distribution and informed by other secret plans or information unknown to public. So in a sense, it doesn't matter whether he is right or you are.
In 4 years another administration could come in but there's still damaged trust. If something happens in 5, 6 years from now and article 5 kicks in then even if the US comes to help what is there to say they won't suddenly pull out again 2 years into a war when Vance takes charge? The reliability is gone.
I guess you've got to be flexible depending on circumstances. I mean NATO only really got going after Europe elected Hitler and now we have another iffy electoral result to work with.
I think they might have been helped along a little by things like being occupied, becoming economically and militarily reliant on their occupiers and watching all of their leaders face judgement at the Nuremberg Trials.
Things haven't gotten quite so extreme in the US yet but it feels reductive to suggest that they can just have a flip flop election and that will show they "realised the error of their ways" like Germany did post WW2.
I think culturally most of the US is still pro NATO, it's just Trump and friends who are anti. I guess if Vance succeeds him things will be similar but if the dems win they won't.
I'm kind of interested if Russia could become normal if the current regime collapses.
The US has burned trust well past 4 years. This has shown how the US political system enables this. Every 4 years they elect someone who has the power to just toss out everything the previous administration did or committed to. Every 4 years... and the US is so politically divided that it only takes a few percent of opinion change at each election to swing to the other party with polar opposite views. As a result, why would any other country now trust the US in any agreement? (not to mention the large number of agreements they have signed then just abandoned later) Four years is nothing time wise.. barely enough time to get an agreement fully implimented before the US can just say "Nah..." There will be significantly less trust for the US even beyond the Trump era.
It would be delusional to think that this can be patched up with a new president, or that any of America's former allies will be willing to wait around twirling their thumbs, hoping that the next time America flips a coin, it turns out better.
The relationship is over. Maybe in 4 years America can start making some initial steps towards patching things up, but even that seems increasingly unlikely at this point.
Why would another Republican President act any differently than Trump after they see how well that works? A majority of the US either doesn’t care about international affairs or they are actively isolationist.
Does anyone think a country not already involved in a nuclear war would willingly expose itself to being annihilated? NATO works best when all member states are stable, ideologically aligned, and its Article 5 resolve is untested. Here the uncertainty works in its favor. But when NATO expands past deep ideological alignment towards a maximal expansionist strategy, and openly courts states its rival signals as core security interests, NATO becomes something else entirely. When it became a tool for maximally isolating Russia, it undermined its own credibility as a unified security entity. There is a genuine question whether the US would go "all in" to defend eastern european states. The fact that we can credibly ask this question about a NATO member just shows how far it's gone from its initial ideals.
We need to remember the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance and not forget that Ukraine was coaxed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1993 by a guarantee of territorial integrity.
Why do we need to remember this agreement that provided zero security guarantees? At most it ensures denuclearization is dead, but frankly speaking, it already was.
Maybe instead we should remember the 2014 Wales Summit that was intended to deter Russian invasion?
Or maybe instead we should consider that right before Russia's invasion in February 2022, Europe collectively dropped their military spending as % of GDP? Possibly since Trump had left office in 2021? Its unfortunate deterrents don't function when you do this...
Actually, maybe what we need to remember is that most of Europes money has been going to Russia even after the invasion? What a strange thing for allies to do right?
It's weird how the United States justified its support in Ukraine as securing the region for its allies while its allies undermined this at every step of the way, do allies usually do that? When I listen to them on TV they seem to care a lot about Ukraine so it's strange...
> point was to spend their 2% GDP on American armaments
Do the NATO agreements specify American armaments? Europe could have spent on European armaments and armies too, just chose not too because they didn't see a reason to.
Europe not buying F35 or whatever hurts US arms industry, but probably not the general strategic position of the US. There's even a credible argument (dont know how credible?) that these arms programs actually undermine security by investing crazy money in outdated / ineffective technology. The dumb part would be not learning from the Ukrainians how to fight a modern war.
US participation in NATO may be made redundant, but Europe's need for a credible collective defense agreement is not going away.
> I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees.
I don't think there are any "security guarantees". What could they be?
The "endgame" as far as I understand it: The US wants access to the minerals as a compensation for the money already spent and, perhaps, to restore some of the support currently put on hold (satellite data access). Once the Ukranian resistance is broken, the US and Russia will jointly dictate a peace, gradually install a Russia-friendly regime and split the profit between them. They will happily invite the EU to finance some of the rebuilding of Ukraine that is then mainly performed by US and Russian companies. The US furthermore hopes that by spearheading the lifting of sanctions it will get priority access to some beneficial deals with and within Russia itself.
I think the implicit guarantee is if American business and workers are harvesting minerals then if Russia attacked the USA would have even more incentive to intervene militarily.
That said, I don’t know what more Ukraine would want given the Budapest Memorandum already ties the USA, UK, and Russia to Ukraine’s defense. That’s proven to be a mixed success, as both USA, UK, and other countries have indeed stepped up for Ukraine’s defense.
> if American business and workers are harvesting minerals then if Russia attacked the USA would have even more incentive to intervene militarily
Or Russia just invades while being careful not to damage their buddy's mines. Maybe the US even helps the Russians out once the Ukranian "dictator" is forced to begin fighting in too close proximity to the minerals.
The point is that Russia won't have to attack any more, because Ukraine will already be nothing more than a puppet state after having been forced to sign the kind of peace deal that Putin wants.
There is no such thing as implicit guarantees. The US has shown it is not a trusted country, and as such, we expect that it will also renege any written guarantees.
American businesses and workers operate all over the world. No-one thinks that this means that all these countries will receive military support from the US if they are invaded.
Another relevant detail here is that a lot of the resources included in the deal are in territory that's currently occupied by Russia – which Trump clearly envisions Russia keeping in any peace settlement.
I think it boils down to the fact that Trump does not understand soft power. Slashing the most powerful and influential aid programme in the world shows that very clearly. The US is as rich as it is because they created an environment of stability (at least on their own territory) and ensuring that there are markets American companies can sell into.
Maybe not so much that as he sees everything as a bargaining chip and any unused chips as a waste. After all, bribery and favors are more or less what soft power is.
But Zelensky came to the white house to sign the deal. If Trump wanted the deal to be signed, it would have been signed. But he chose to gang up on Zelensky.
The endgame isn't for the USA, it's for Trump. I don't really know what it is, but I'm pretty certain that to understand his actions, you have to rid yourself of the idea that he's doing it for anybody or anything else than for himself.
> I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees.
I don't think this is true at all, I think Trump wants Ukraine to be conquered and for Russia to win and for people to stop bothering him about any of it.
Trump blew up whatever nonsense minerals deal there was, and is actively sabotaging the Ukrainian defence efforts via this, and ending intelligence sharing, and apparently leaning on random American companies to stop them selling services to Ukraine, and by providing diplomatic cover and support to Russia.
people haven't seem to have caught on yet - the US has switched sides, it is now part of the Russia bloc.
What would you do if you were a team of US oligarchs with connections to the administration and wanted to increase your share of, and power over, the domestic cake?
Tell me it doesn't fit.
Edit: this story just dropped off the main page. Currently sitting at 85 points and 77 comments. It had position 2 or so, now it has position 79.
Laat I think I knew anything it took surprisingly few flags and I think people abuse it all the time to get rid of things they personally don't like. And don't like is a broad category.
Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating non-US alternatives.
Seriously, America, this is like Brexit but 1000x. A voluntary decision, taken with gusto, to chop off arms and legs and ears and fingers and whatnot, cut off the deadwood, be light and free, a lone vessel on the ocean of prosperity, free of the burden of the stupid foreigners who are the sole reason why everything was going wrong.
This is top of mind for all European countries that bought the F-35. They are painfully aware of this. So is the US defense industry which will notice softening sales kicking in a few years down the line as European countries are less inclined to buy US arms.
This was predictable though. The markets have already rewarded those who saw this coming.
I wonder if we'll see a coordinated wave of F-35 cancellations. They must all be aware they are potentially buying bricks. The time to do it, thus, is now - the situation isn't improving while time and money are wasted.
But that's an enormous political escalation.
Or maybe Europeans, as "founding members", are able to support the planes on their own? I doubt it though. The engine alone is US made, ans that alone is probably unmaintainable without their support.
On the F-35 program, ability to perform local support isn't so much based on being a "founding member" but rather program partnership level. The only other Level 1 partner is the UK. As Level 2 we have Italy and the Netherlands. All other countries are down at Level 3 (most heavily dependent on US support), except for Israel which is sort of a special case with a unique variant and special rules about local control. Ultimately though, you're correct that the F-35 will quickly turn into a brick for every export customer without active US support.
The other factor is the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement. The F-35A is the only new aircraft certified to carry the US nuclear weapons under that arrangement, so that impacts Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands. Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead. Of course, if the US pulls back from NATO and ends nuclear sharing then that concern would become moot and some of those countries would be likely to develop their own nuclear weapons.
"Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead"
I remember the story rather like this:
US: "you want to certify your fighter for nuclear devices"
Germany: "yes"
US: "ooh, that will be expensive and takes a loooong time. Don't you want to just buy our F35 instead?"
And germany basically did. With the implicit understanding, to buy a piece of nuclear protection with that. Well, all gone ... so there are really only some voices left, wanting to keep buying the expensive, potentially useless bricks.
Yes, that's basically accurate. Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has always taken the cheapest possible military option in order to fund their precious social programs and treated the military as just another government jobs program. While I think the current US administration's moves to cut off our allies are deeply stupid and the moral equivalent of treason, Germany has only itself to blame for creating such a dependency. Alliances are always temporary and now Germany will have to face reality.
Europe can't even maintain some Eurofighter fleets without US support. The Austrian model for example needs a crypto key for secure communications from a US company for every flight.
The US cryptography key is only needed for NATO Link 16 communications, not for regular flight operations. This is totally normal because Austria isn't a full NATO member. They are part of the NATO Partnership for Peace program which allows for limited levels of cooperation.
But right now the fact that there US citizens (apparently civil contractors, not military personell) stationed at austrian air bases to enable some functionality is a big deal. This is a big deal because the wish-wash Austrian Neutrality is crucial to Austrian Identity.
How is it a big deal? If Austria wanted full access to NATO technology then they should have joined NATO. They chose not to, and now they have to accept the consequences of that choice. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.
It's the usual hypocrisy. There never was money for the military, neutrality ever popular and nobody thought about it back when things seemed more stable. Now that things are changing, it's a big deal. Maybe we join Nato, maybe Europe get it's own shit together. We'll see.
There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian reality is permanent. Politicians in Europe are still hoping that this is all a bad dream. So I guess the orders will somehow (by delaying payments, inventing some requirements, finding problems in deliveries that have to be endlessly discussed and fixed, ...) be delayed for 4 years. If the next president is still looking as anti-European as Trump, orders will for sure be cancelled.
I doubt "until the administration ceases to act insane" is going to be enough. The current administration has proven to be untrustworthy, so nothing they say is going to restore trust in the US. On top of that, what guarantees could the US give that a future Trump 2.0 isn't going to break on their first day?
The problem is systemic: The US doesn't have a functioning democracy. FPTP, gerrymandering, unchecked campaign financing, the electoral college? It just isn't working, and the US is permanently stuck in a dysfunctional two-party system. If that doesn't get fixed (and let's be honest, it won't), the rest of the world won't be trusting the US until it can demonstrate a few decades of continuous trustworthy leadership after Trump is gone.
I think this is overly optimistic. Countries around the world can't build strategies around the US that will only hold when the Democrats are in power. Trump and the Republican party as a whole have thrown reliability out the window. Even if the GOP come to their senses and reject the America First ideology and pop their disinformation bubble the damage has still be done to the character of state. The only option for the US is to hold on to its power by sheer muscle power, but that will only last so long.
> There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian reality is permanent
We have to assume that the US cannot be trusted as a military ally for at least the next 4 years. In fact, we have to be open to the possibility that they will be willing to be hostile. Including, but not limited to, extortion tactics. That's the hard baseline here.
We also have to be open to the possibility that the US either won't or can't have a proper election in 2028. And even if there is a proper election, that even a "sensible" president will not repair the damage.
What is already permanent is that Europe will never have the same level of trust in the US ever again. Perhaps some of it can grow back over a few decades, but the former level of trust will not return.
Still. None of the desired 800B of investment in defense equipment and technology can have US suppliers after the last couple of weeks. Even if the US eventually gets rid of this cancerous development.
Doubts? Maybe officially in PR statements, otherwise you would have to be mad to think this is temporary. Its as temporary as his lifespan. People with actual power are not that stupid anywhere.
I am not holding my breath that he will just walk away in 4 years, why would anybody be so naive? He thinks US constitution is an old toilet paper, its mememe. Look at what happened last time he was supposed to go out.
Trump has been here clearly signaling that a large portion of the US population does not support international military subsidies and Europe has done nearly nothing to prepare. Pushing forward a head-in-the-sand narrative is hugely detrimental to Europe’s independent future and requires a degree of blindness that is absurd
By "military subsidies" you mean US government money subsidizing US defense industry I assume?
Because that is where most of the money ends up when the US "supports" other countries. The US unloads weapons from its stockpiles (that need to be replaced at some point anyway) and then replenish the US stockpiles. This is both a huge injection of funds into US defense industry, and it takes care of the expensive problem of dealing with old ordnance.
US defense industry is going to be busy restocking the US stockpiles for a while longer.
If revenue were to soften before that, the Trump administration can distract from this reality by pumping more money into the industry short term. This may actually push the problem forward in time to the next president if they can keep pumping in enough money to hide the problem. It looks as if they are doing exactly this.
Of course, a few years down the line the defense industry will be in trouble as "consumer trust" is gone, Europe have ramped up their production and revenues will start to plummet.
Like all things it depends on the terms, in my mind though China would probably be incentivized to give us a good deal - Im sure they would be very amused delivering real hardware while the USA continues to demonstrate their incompetence at shipbuilding. It would also signal that Australia wants to sit out any USA/China war, which might be hard to do politically (which is maybe why Im not PM) but its certainly the position I hope Aus ends up taking should these 2 buffoons start a real blue
We need to pay the money to USA as tribute so its a write-off anyway, but I have low confidence we will ever see working hardware from it. However I bet China would actually prioritise delivery of some new subs if we pivoted to using them as our naval supplier, to win mindshare in the west as an alternative to America or Russia as an arms supplier. and we set up the next 100 years of paying off bigger countries to leave us alone, which honestly worked well enough the last 100 years
We're uniquely suited to not support the F-35. Not unless you swap out the engine for a Safran one, change the avionics for Dassault's, rip out the rest of the electronics for the Thalès stuff and replace the ordnance with MBDA's.
We'd keep the frame, but Serge Dassault and Charles de Gaulle would probably smite any French mechanic coming within 20 feet of a F-35 to do anything but dismantle one for its secrets.
It is not going to happen. There is no european manufacturer or a consortium that can build a similar airplane with comparable capabilities. They can't even match the F-22 which is more than two decades old.
The only way Europe can match Russia/China is to keep buying american made weapons. Maybe in 20-30 years the situation will be different and Europe will have the same capabilities of the US, but until then... buy, baby, buy!
It seems to me Donald is beheld in some way to Vladimir; what's being done now to my eye is too specifically about setting up UA for second RU invasion.
Donald then I think, step by step, is going to ally with Vladimir.
1. US aid to UA stops (done).
2. USA leaves NATO (on the way).
3. US troops in Europe leave or move to Hungary (floated).
4. Hungary is ejected from EU due to Orban obstructing everything he can.
5. Hungary becomes RU satellite state (maybe with many tens of thousand of US troops).
6. USA lifts its sanctions, placing it directly in conflict with Europe.
7. Donald invokes Insurrection Act, military units can now be used for civil policing (this is why top military brass and specifically top military lawyers removed).
8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
9. To "encourage peace", Donald now disables support for US weapon systems being used by Europe in UA. At this point, F-35 is history whether or not EU has dropped them or not.
10. Protests in USA, military used, people die, Donald suspends Constitution "to restore order and combat subversive elements".
11. No more elections. All court cases underway made irrelevant.
The solution should probably be to go in and fight Russia immediately.
I think it's foolish to restrict operations to Ukraine though, and feel that the size of Russia is one of its main weaknesses. If there's to be a war, it should involve incursions into the US proper.
Anyone with a working memory of a couple of years remembers people like you who said a variety of excuses to the tune of "it won't be that bad", "you're exaggerating" and "it won't happen like that".
Of course, all of them were wrong. Short of WW3 between Europe and the US, many awful things that were predicted have come true. DT has severely weakened the USA, weakened the stock market, damaged US reputation and trust in the US army, dismantled many departments, put useless shills in most important positions, pulled out of Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, sucked up to Putin, and turned it all into a country that most people in Europe consider a hostile enemy (myself included).
So. For the sake of your fellow citizens, quit the excuses.
The result, and perhaps the definition, of the polarization problem is that every time something terrible happens, the responsible side would rather say "I love suffering, this feels great" than lose face in an imagined argument with the other side.
Not American, but provided US military has an oath towards the Constitution (and not to whatever the government claims), I doubt _all_ of US army would follow (either internally, either externally) such a brutal reversal of duty as well as alliances.
Duty is to the Constitution and the Commander in Chief. And alliances are at the discretion of the President. The military will do whatever they are told in terms of who the have to be friends with.
I know. That's the theory and mostly the practice.
Only, ask your military to return against your just previous allies (at your own initiative) among which the one that helped your very nation to fight for its independence, with which you did cross-training and exercises, for the past 80 years... everyone is in for quite a bumpy road.
You mean the _Vichy_ French soldiers? that's quite a different situation than the allied French army :)
And, I was more thinking of the situation on American ground, within the USA and between the USA and Canada. I don't mean it wouldn't happen. I mean that I don't think that would happen with 100% engagement from all US army. The disconnect and reversal of strategy of the US, against its own allies, is too sudden.
> 8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
Given the size and battle experience of their armies I think that it's more probable that it's Ukraine that will cover Europe and not viceversa. And if they'll have to flee their country add a 12th point the UA army takes sanctuary in the EU that goes the way of Lebanon in the 70s when another army had to flee there.
Yes. Right now it's the EU which needs UA, and EU knows it; EU military is weak and has no idea how to fight with drones. UA military is strong and knows how to fight with drones.
If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.
This is why I think we see EU direct involvement in UA fighting; needed to keep UA up, and needed to get up to speed with drones.
> If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.
Do you have any numbers or analysis to back this up, please?
A few counterpoints:
- Russia failed to 'take' a relatively unprepared Ukraine, and arguably has only managed the gains it has made because the support (from Biden US and EU) was drip-fed according to the Biden team's strategy.
- Russia is haemorraging fighters and modern fighting machinery in the current war in Ukraine. It's unknown how much longer the loss of life can be sustained without internal unrest. The absence of modern machinery would obviously make an invasion of Europe less likely to succeed.
- While Russia might now be a "war economy" I've seen reports that they can't economically sustain the war for too much longer.
- While the EU certainty needs to invest in defence, some countries are already strong, and would likely fight to protect the collective.
Overall, this suggests that Russia would fail against a united Europe, were they to extend beyond a defeated Ukraine.
While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much western support. Ukraine would of course be in a much better position now if that support had been stronger and not been dribbled in.
Russia's economy is teetering and looks very weak now, but much of that is due to sanctions. Sanctions that trump will probably remove soon, for zero concessions. I'm not sure how effective EU sanctions will be on their own. Soon we will be seeing a much stronger Russia, already on a heavy war footing, start swallowing up a much weaker Ukraine. I don't like what might happen after that plays out.
I get that Trump is unpredictable from one moment to the next, and also that (at best) is strongly influenced when he speaks to Putin, but he's been consistently spoken and (just about) acted from anti-war and pro-peace-deal positions.
Wouldn't freeing up Russia through removal of sanctions and a refusal to engage militarily resulting in an escalation in Ukraine and potentially beyond into Europe be seen as a big failure of his position?
Nah, Swedish aerotech already out matches both Russia in terms of production capacity, arguably 6th if you ignore stealth, weapons range and weapons reliability. And already beats China in terms of technology, they're just now producing 5th gen airframes with copied tech, where Sweden isn't just following.
The EU without the US can already produce 5th gen, the selling point of the F35 was 6th gen compatible with 7th gen (NGAD).
Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters, because they can't get their bricks off the ground. Why would the EU want to copy the same mistakes of their enemy?
No, because the US could fly them, (assumedly), but doesn't. Where my understanding is Russia can't keep their fleet maintained let alone produce more. You don't use gorilla air tactics and bomb civilian infrastructure if you have other options. Russia is smart enough to know the value of winning hearts and minds, but they don't. Why not? Because they can't is the only reasonable conclusion I've seen
I don't have access to perfect information, but I find the reports that Russia is unable to maintain their entire fleet creditable, and believe and/or trust the experts who confirm this analysis.
As far as I know the US military still has more 4gen jets than 5gen.
Obviously Russia has no 5gen at all (or just a few 5gen Su-57, if we going to name them 5gen).
Anyway, my point is that as of now Russia has no need for gen5 and can't afford it anyway, just like about anyone else except for the US and a few countries that have them but at the same time have to rely on the US anyway.
If you look at the raw specs maybe. Grippen has a specific role which is starting and landing anywhere and being easy to support, both in manpower and materials. You can land a Grippen on any short stretch of paved ground, get it rearmed and ready to fly again in half an hour with 5 people. Whereas higher spec american jets like the F16 need very long, clean and straight runways, lots of support infrastructure, lots of personnel and have a long turnaround time. With the likes of F35 and F22 this is even worse.
As other poster said, Gripen is perfect for a defensive role as a missile launch platform. It's not supposed to go 1:1 with F-35:s, but to counter the Russian air capability - and mostly in a defensive role. F-35:s were really great when they came with larger techno-military-political ecosystem but now the trust in that ecosystem is shattered.
Don't forget the F-35 is the best plane for the PREVIOUS war. The current and the NEXT war will be fought with drones. And Ukraine is one of the countries that has the best drone industry.
Maybe we (as a Pole living in Norway) can't have state of the art jets, but in practice don't need them?
We (as the whole eastern block - Scands, Balts, Poland, Romania and Ukraine) should cancel our orders of F-35 and focus on developing our drone and strategic missile industry. And focus on investing, developing and buying from our closest allies - the eastern block.
Not on the countries that don't care because they are either too far from Russia (Spain, Italy) or have vested geopolitical interest in alllying with them (Germany). France and UK might want to join to balance out Germany.
At least that's what I understand from hearing smarter than me discuss the current situation.
Which next war? The type of small, short range drones currently being used in Ukraine and Russia won't be of much use in a major regional conflict with China. Ranges will be orders of magnitude longer and communication links for drone control won't be reliable.
The main reason that Ukraine and Russia have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative. The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero) 5th generation aircraft that can survive in a contested environment. The F-35 was designed for that mission and would at least have a chance.
Have you seen that Chinese dragon made with drones they showed off during the NYE show? Now imagine them autonomous and every carrying a bomb. Even Phalanx will not help you. Bye bye aircraft carriers.
Personally I oppose sending troops to the front in Ukraine, but for a different reason than others who oppose it: I believe that to send them to already fortified Russian positions is wasteful.
Consequently I believe that if the EU is to intervene, which I think is a very reasonable thing to do, it should be by imitiating the Russian approach of using aircraft as flying artillery-- i.e. to release missiles etc., against Russian positions in Ukraine, but I also believe that we should attack Russian natural gas pipelines, ammonia plants, nitric acid plants, ammunition plants with long-range weapons. I also believe that it's reasonable to send in ground troops to seize Russian and Belarusian territory in locations where it can be determined that Russia lacks artillery, tanks etc., and to in that way force troop movements, thus depleting the front in Ukraine and allowing Ukraine to basically roll it over.
I believe that this is possible for several reasons, among them that we Europeans are three times as many as the Russians. I believe that it is unlikely to lead to nuclear war because I believe that the Russians are rational and well aware that any nuclear use by them leads to a proportional nuclear use by 'us', whatever that means, and that the number of nuclear weapons in Russian control is irrelevant for the reason that they're gone after an exchange of a mere hundred or so, so that anything beyond that is superfluous.
> The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero)
I wouldn't call Russian AF "shit". The УМПК (JDAM) bombs crushed formidable defense of Avdeevka and now hit AFU hard in Sudja. Ka-52 helicopters stopped counteroffensive a year ago. Surely, sky is contested, but it's still important component that hurts Ukraine very hard.
> have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative
What would be an alternative to wing reconnaissance drones? What can hyper-equipped US armed forces offer as a replacement FPV and fiber-optics FPV attack drones? Yeah they have Reapers and other fancy expensive gear for the first 3-4 weeks of active war, then what?
The Russian air force is shit. They have zero capability to conduct close air support and have been reduced to launching stand-off weapons from within their own air defense coverage. This has some value but it's basically just another form of artillery. US tactical air capabilities are on an entirely different level.
The US has a variety of overlapping reconnaissance capabilities including not just large UAVs but also manned aircraft (including the F-35) and multiple satellite constellations. Over the next few years the priorities in that area should be to accelerate the B-21 Raider program (it will make an excellent recon platform) and develop some sort of prompt satellite launch capability to replace combat losses within hours. There is also a general recognition that we'll have to increase spending or shift budget priorities to build up the industrial capacity necessary to sustain longer conflicts.
Small DIY drones are only useful when no side has air superiority. Once you own the air, you can bomb and support ground troops a lot more efficiently.
The Rafale has claimed F-22 kills, but also consider that the competition here isn’t a straight up war against the United States but rather against Russia. As we’ve seen in the invasion of Ukraine, they don’t need advanced 6th generation fighters to handily best Russian forces using Soviet-era technology, and drones are FAR more significant in that kind of combat. Even if the F-35 was better at those types of missions, the high cost of the aircraft and support suggest that this might simply accelerate the shift away from human-piloted aircraft.
If your threat model did include a war within former NATO members, the F-35 is the worst possible choice so another way of thinking about this is that they should pick the best option which is actually available. That would mean things like swarm attacks and strikes on the airfields where those stealthy but extremely fragile planes are housed. Even if the public range is significantly low, they’d need a base closer than Greenland to strike European targets.
What exactly do you think are so special about American made products? The only reason that America’s allies have bought them in the past is because of Pax Americana. That’s about to end if not has ended already.
BAE Systems along with other European arms/aerospace manufacturers are perfectly capable of making competing products.
Which allies fought alongside in every conflict the US participated in? With the exception of the blunders in Iraq and Aghanistan where everybody jumped on the “lets conquer faraway countries” bandwagon.
In Syria the US bombs things at their will, same in Somalia. In all Latin America conflicts the US went at it alone.
Honestly, go and look it up yourself, you’re not engaging in this thread constructively. You’re simply parroting MAGA talking points. I didn’t say “every”, I said “mostly”.
Europe had no reason to spy on the US before, why shouldn't the EU produce a carbon copy of the F-35? There is already a plant making them in Germany. If the US is tearing up treaties then why can't the EU tear up their promise of not stealing military technology?
Not to pile on but you say we should buy the F-35 to go toe to toe against Russia…
America is currently doing everything for Russia! If we actually used the F35 against Russia right now Trump would probably immediately do everything in his power to
stop that, just like he’s exerting pressure everywhere else he can in Russias favour
Honestly I’ll personally be buying as little American as possible going forwards
Euro companies need to be moving off companies like Amazon swiftly, they’re under the boot of the new leadership. There’s a few years before even the current Russian leadership can change us rhetoric to be actively hostile to Europe, but it’s coming.
FWIW, given everything else that we've seen from Russia in this undeclared(!) war, I'm moderately confident the Russian nukes and delivery mechanisms are sub-par.
(Typing "sub" reminded me of the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank itself…)
It needs only a few to launch successfully to engulf Europe in flames.
So, even with subpar equipment, out of all of the 1700+ launch vehicles a few will still launch.
Some of the P(weapon failure) is constant: from what I hear, a certain fraction of Soviet and US systems (and presumably everyone else's) just don't work.
If that was all it was, then you would be correct.
But: some failures come with age, and require ongoing maintenance to retain function. For example, I expect all the tritium has decayed, and also that in many cases the money that was supposed to get spent replacing the tritium was instead spent on a fancy yacht or a football team or a seat in the UK's House of Lords etc.
And I don't know how good modern anti-missile weapons are, but I would expect them to have improved; conversely, despite Russia's talk about new hypersonic missiles, what they've shown hasn't been very impressive, and they've even used up some of their old nuclear-capable missiles while attacking Ukraine.
I'm happy to be relaxed about this, but only because I have no power — 90% chance some attempted hot war is actually all duds is great for me personally, 10% chance everything burns is unacceptably high for someone running a country.
Russia and China are regional powers and can't project military power very far, excluding nukes. To do that you need a credible blue water navy. China is close though, and definitely projecting its economic strength.
Europe (lets just say EU + UK) could be a superpower. However they lack political unity. And still want big daddy US to do the heavy lifting.
When Putin can't take back Kursk, it seems odd to call Russia a super power.
But yes, agree with you about China.
Putin wants people to think Russia is a super power, when it's instead a corrupted inefficient mafia state. Look at research or startups coming from there (not much) or it's economy - the country is not interesting any longer (Putin has damaged it that much). Except for Putin attacking Ukraine, and his nukes and troll farms.
If Pakistan starts threatening other countries with nuclear war, and tries to invade a neighbor but mostly fails, is it then suddenly a super power?
I wish the EU agreed with you. That would surely mean they would not want to go on a 800 billion Euro spend of my taxpayer money to deter an "irrelevant country".
Yes, that's why the U.S. wants to control Arctic trade routes from China to Europe.
The Ukraine war was "successful" in destroying the possibility of railways between the EU and China.
The EU, ever the good vassal, now ramps up the rhetoric against Russia which is exactly what Hegseth wanted in the open.
The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater.
If the above conjectures are wrong and Trump is serious about peace with Russia, then the EU needs to pivot quickly to China and at least maintain reasonable diplomatic relations with Russia.
> The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater.
I find that becoming exceedingly unlikely. Trust has been destroyed, there is no easy recovery from that.
So many odd things have been occurring in the past month that I don't know what to believe any longer.
First, ex-neocon Rubio admitted on the Megyn Kelly show that the world is now multi-polar. Even if he believes that, why would he say so unless it's for show.
Then there is Lindsey Graham. In 2016 he gave warlike speeches to the Azov Batallion:
Graham and probably Rubio are still neocons. Trump must be really powerful to keep all this under control.
Then there is the U.S. arms lobby, which is uncannily quiet even though they'll lose a ton of business when NATO becomes irrelevant. Then there are no reactions to Polish nuclear ambitions, which is weird unless the whole thing is scripted.
So there are two theories. Either Trump is carving up the world or he is acting.
Elon Musk threatens to spend millions against any republican who deviates from Trump’s policies. Without that threat, the republicans would speak up against this assault on American interest and values. I wonder more if Elon has been compromised than Trump. Or if Russia threaten to trigger the Kessler syndrome, destroying all of Elon’s aspirations of getting off this rock (I’m still skeptical if he’s telling the truth about that), and instructed him to stop the war.
given the extreme 'benefits' of autonomous weapons (cheap, can be produced in arbitrary numbers, easier logistics, fewer parents mourning their children in your country, vastly easier production), we should expect them to be fielded before they are really ready.
I mean, if any other country spent 700+ billion a year on corporate welfare to defence contractors they’d have some impressive tech too.
If nobody wants to buy any of that shit because of the knock-on effects of Trump’s self-sabotage and they start investing elsewhere, then those defence companies will sooner distance themselves from the US as well. Unless they’re in on whatever the administration is cooking up the money is still going to speak louder.
No, thank you we are not idiots. Out fighters are just fine, as long as we don't have to fight US.
BTW you don't seem to understand military well - F22 is much better plane than F35, but abysmally complex to do and expensive, thats why the low numbers. F35 has way too many compromises ie for us navy.
Also, as Ukraine war shows fighter jets are not that important for waging war if situation is more like peer vs peer, and not US blowing shepherds and weddings into pieces. Sure, they lob a bomb or two, sometimes launch a rocket but all from as much distance as possible. What wins such wars these days is artillery, massive amount of infantry and millions of various drones.
Canada’s largest newspaper published an opinion piece [0] calling for the cancellation of F-35 purchases. The article calls out source code availability in its argument.
Europe is developing 6th Gen fighter(s) already though. And yes, Europe produces a 5th Gen fighter. The f35 is made only in USA and Italy, although I share the worries on having a potentially brickable device
5th gen is a nonsense marketing term. It is far less about the plane itself and more about how it integrates into a force. This is why russian figthers are pretty useless: they are not integrated with the rest of the force and they lack coordination. The russians do not even have the ability to discriminate between their own planes and enemy planes when making decisions to launch AA missiles.
But if the EU has no 5th gen fighters then they'd have a hard time maintaining Air Superiority against Russia if they manage to mass produce Su-57 or Su-75 and I am betting the Russian can do it before EU can have 5th gen fighters or FCAS.
I think Russian capabilities depends almost entirely on who the US and China are willing to sell weapons to — Russia has huge corruption problems, arguably this is why they were dumb enough to not only start a war but also why they weren't able to actually pull off a blitzkrieg against Ukraine, so I don't think Russia will be able to combine high volume and high quality for anything any time soon.
EU industrial capabilities may also have issues, but they are (mostly) different ones than Russia faces.
The biggest Russian fuckup in this war was to put their elite soldiers in one plane for Hostomel Airport without knowing that Ukraine had SAMs in position and enough intelligence to know this was coming.
After that the Russian "elite" units were elite in name only.
This was in hour 8 of the war and it's worth bearing in mind that this war could have gone very, very differently.
I don't know where you got this myth from. Extermination of elite VDV units was not just one plane shot down.
There were many russian helicopters successfully landing at Hostomel, the area saw heavy fighting for several days until it was under Ukrainian control.
> The Russian Il-76s carrying reinforcements could not land; they were possibly forced to return to Russia.[35]
Rumors of an Il-76 downed close to Vasylkiv did not prove to be true:
> Claims have been made that Ukrainian aircraft shot down two Russian Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft transporting assault troops.[33][124][34] However, The Guardian reports "no convincing public evidence has surfaced about the two downed planes, or about a drop of paratroopers in Vasylkiv".[125]
Now you’re assuming quite a bit more than just a handful of troupes surviving. Such as them being able to get to an airport when there’s air defenses in the way. Being able to reinforce those troupes quickly again through air defenses etc.
Within a narrative such as loss of elite troops would definitely have some serious impact. In the context of a war the loss of the aircraft could easily be more significant.
The videos of the Russian troops at Hostomel are on Youtube. As a commenter above mentioned, they were there to allow troop transports to land and eventually be connected to the tank column coming south from Belarus.
Sure that was a plan, but it turns such movements of tanks proved very detrimental to Russia.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking if only X, but war is complicated. It’s possible Russia would have been worse off because they tried to use those VDV soldiers in a plan that disastrously failed. It’s slightly more likely that they would have been a small net benefit, but chances are things would look more or less identical today with or without them.
My guy, the dismissive tone of "it's not an action movie" while backpedaling to "tut tut, sure that might have been their specific plan but have you considered unintended consequences" is too much for me.
Saying doing X wouldn’t have mattered is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal here. Ukraine not using a missile for attacking that aircraft means they could have used it to attack a different aircraft. Similarly Russia got to use all forces in that plan not destroyed with the aircraft in some other plan.
That’s not backpedaling that’s just the inherent complexities involved.
Whatever shit tier RU MIC/performance has been, it has manage to consistently defeat or mitigate what US+EU has thrown against her. Which includes highend gear like PAC3 MSE. Meanwhile half the reason RU had a hard time was due to facing UKR's abundant legacy USSR systems. At this point it's not unreasonable to dismiss everything in EU arsenal as wunderwaffe tier especially without US support. Including F35... which even if US doesn't restrict usage against EU-RU scenario, could still be borderline paperweight without US tier ISR.
People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117 barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago.
IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what that entails for IndoPac). They'd rather see RU hit F35s in hangers with standoff munitions because at least they can point to JP and SKR and say, see, you need to build harden air shelters.
Where are you getting this from? There certainly has been some exaggeration online and in the media about the capabilities of western military hardware, especially tanks. But that doesn't mean they were bad, just that they are far from invulnerable. And there are quite a few examples where they saved the soldiers inside when a Russian tank would have tossed their turret.
Patriot works in Ukraine, they even got a few Khinzal. But of course any air defense is limited by available ammo and you need enough of the right kind of air defense in the right places for this to work well. The Ukraine is really limited by the number of available systems and ammunition. And for something like the Shahed drones you need other ways to defend yourself to avoid exhausting your precious ammunition for advanced air defense systems.
Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat aging European cruise missiles were able to easily penetrate current Russian air defenses.
> Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat aging European cruise missiles were able to easily penetrate current Russian air defenses.
Most likely because they did not have the specs or complete specs for them and how they looked like on radar. There was an article somewhere that I can't find right now where something like this was said: Once a new weapon system is employed against RU or by RU against UA, it takes about two weeks to create countermeasures for it.
"Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago."
We are seeing Ukrainians regularly hitting russian redars and air defence. Whatever nato wasn't able to do in hte 90s the Ukrainians are fully capable of doing today, because they are doing it. And with lots of european help. So this is just outdated speculation you're doing.
> People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117 barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago
Likewise the reason why Russia couldn't steamroll Ukraine swiftly is because Ukraine anti air is very formidable (using Soviet hardware no less). That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak.
There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely because they're situationally better than tanks in certain combat conditions. For the same reason everyone is zipping around in dirt bikes and golf carts or UKR retiring M1 tanks from frontlines. Look up survivability onion, tanks/armor get detected and destroyed because they're too visible vs modern frontline battlefield recon. If you want to survive, have to move to smaller/more agile platforms to avoid detection in the first place. RU and UKR are both learning and adapting. It's reflection that last 50 years of doctorine is obsolete, aka everything EU military also hedged on. If shit ever hits the fan, NATO maybe donkeying as well.
I don't think that's true. As an example, Finland and French doctrine are very different. It's easier to test all Euopean nations diffrent doctrine and choose what works best (especially if countries from the Balkans add their grain of salt)
Imho that's where European defense industry (as a whole) is interesting. Because you have 5 competing IFV designs (well, over 15, but really, 5 different design that does different things). You also have multiple tanks (and AMX-10s), as well as a bunch of different drone constructors. Even in gun design you have multiple choices, andh while optics and optrionics are Thales', overall equipements are extremely distributed. Europe might find itself on the backfoot in case of an engagement, but i'm pretty sure it would bounce back quickly.
Still sources like Covert Cabal and others do make me think it isn't only a tactical consideration the russians have made but also a reflection of the fact that they very much do see the end of their stockpile.
You really make the best point here. End of the day, the 1986-style WW2++ strategy is dead. Manned air superiority outside of the third world is dead.
The Russian failure is the exemplar. They were re-waging WW2, and they have little more than a lot of cooked tankers to show for it. Now we’re rolling with throwing prisoners into trenches to stop the maneuver warfare, because they can’t maneuver.
The US is probably in as bad of a condition. Given the poor performance of air power in Ukraine and the Trump/Putin driven destruction of world alignment, US naval power is questionable. Aircraft carriers will become ineffective as modern SAMs are sold on the market. Our submarine platforms are old, manufacturing is barely operational, and we’ll probably fire key individuals if we haven’t already.
Aircraft carriers were always a joke in a US vs. Soviet conflict. A carrier will help with third-world enemies that cannot threaten it. However, the Soviet Union had capable submarine forces as well as ship-launched (e.g. from Kirov class cruisers) as well as air-launched anti-ship missiles which in numbers can overwhelm the carriers air defense screen.
In WW3 the role of an aircraft carrier is to launch its airplanes exactly once, before it is sunk.
Let's be fair here. If we rightly mock all the silly *pravda sites, the mules aren't exactly reported in the serious press either.
It seems more likely that mules were used where they make sense: Supplying ammo to a trench deeply in the forest, where mules are the superior "technology". Then that observation was blown out of proportion.
Remember that "the Russians are fighting with shovels" was a slogan in 2022.
One problem with the digital age is you can find news to support any view, regardless of how disconnected from reality it may be. And enough people to echo such that one may not realize how ridiculous they sound.
> IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what that entails for IndoPac)
Israel's F-35 have being going in and out of Iran's airspace with impunity, so no, I don't think that is going to be an issue.
Thankfully, Russia doesn't really have 5th Gen either. Europe has a lot of solid 4+ gen planes: Rafale, Eurofighter, maybe Gripen. And I'm willing to guess that, especially with better trained pilots, these are potentially better than Russia's assortment.
But there remains a question of quantity and determination.
The surviving Russian pilots fly towards the front line at a high altitude until they get close to the suspected range of Ukrainian air defences, drop glide bombs and then turn around. Sometimes the Ukrainians have snuck an air defence unit closer to the front lines without it being detected and the pilots exit the category of surviving Russian pilots.
I'm not sure how applicable this would be to a confrontation with European countries. Russian fighters will get getting lots of flight hours on CAP as well, but not much combat based on reporting. Both sides are keeping everything inside their own AD bubbles.
Sure, but that risk is just something Europe has to eat as punishment for buying F-35 instead of building their own, it doesn't affect the new reality that US aircraft cannot be trusted in wartime.
So far their 5th generation fighter program has been an even worse embarrassement than the T14 Armata.
Their own press photos shows uncovered Philips screws on a supposedly stealth aircraft, and their "loyal wingman" drone used the first opportunity near the frontlines to try to defect.
They have less than 30 airframes, probably 30-40% have some level of operational airworthiness.
The Russians get a lot of glazing on social media about military prowess. The reality is they’re fighting a tiny, poor country, got their asses kicked early on when nobody was really helping Ukraine substantially, mostly by virtue of their own incompetence.
The Russians version of the USAF is their information operations. They’ve helped to nurture right wing shitheads in the US for decades culminating in two freakshow presidential administrations. They’ve done the same in Germany in the former GDR and in the UK with the leave wankers.
I'm willing to bet they can do it with possible financial assistance from India (they need 5th gen fighters too) and generic chips from China.
P.S. Many mocked Russian munitions came with chips made by Texas Instruments among others, but thing is those chips are so damn generic you can get that from random shops in Shenzhen.
Not many options for India.
F-35 is also very risky and unclear delivery date, not to mention they also got burned by delayed F414 engines delivery for their Tejas.
With rumours of Pakistan getting J-35, 5th Gen fighters are necessity I guess.
Besides they can force Russian to manufacture them in India like Su-30 MKI.
“On 27 May 2006, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that "Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft." In December 2006, an agreement was signed which met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access to software source code and operational sovereignty. The agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for operation of the aircraft.”
While I doubt that it solves all the issue, subcontractors, imported parts and so on, but the Italian F-35s are build be Leonardo in Cameri in Italy. How long would it take BAE, SAAB or Leonardo to un-brick an F-35?
Again, not ideal, but the first F-35 have been delivered an need to be serviced and maintained until they can be replaced,... or maybe just until the next US election.
I'd expect the original agreements that were put in place--both the ones with the subcontractors as well as the purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can do with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
The original article suggests that Ukraine may end up having to replace the electronic countermeasures hardware to get around this in the future, so I'd expect any attempts to "un-brick"/work around the lack of support will eventually be along those lines, even if it results in some performance degradation.
No matter how they approach this, it's going to be a horrifically difficult and expensive task.
> Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
the UK made access to the source code a condition of purchase, and the technology transfer agreement was signed
in a hypothetical scenario where the US federal government falls under the direct control of a russian asset, I imagine this would end up in our allies hands reasonably quickly
> I'd expect the original agreements that were put in place--both the ones with the subcontractors as well as the purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can do with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
We're talking about Europe being able to protect itself from a potential Russian invasion despite the US bricking their F35s, and your argument is that they'd have to bend or break an agreement?
I don't think that's a big hurdle, in that eventuality.
Hardware is not the issue. The US strictly controls the software whence many differentiated capabilities of the aircraft come. This includes a lot of secret computer science R&D that no one has access to. Countries were buying it for the advanced software.
I think there’s an interesting question about how important updates are: say they unbrick it, how often do you have before there’s some change you’d actually want to have but it’s no longer easily available? This feels like the much higher-stakes version of people trying to jailbreak phones without losing security updates.
Next national elections are the midterms in November 2026 with a new house and senate taking over in Jan 2027, 22 months time.
If the American people want to shift track they have the opportunity to actually elect a Congress which will do something.
If not it’s November 2028 for the next presidential election. Trump (if he’s still alive - he’s not exactly young or healthy) won’t be able to stand for a third term unless a constitutional ammendment is past
MAGA is essentially a personality cult. There will be a massive power vacuum once Trump leaves the stage, and I doubt any fraction will be big enough to whip the kind of unwavering loyalty we're seeing today.
The Israelis weren’t given a choice in the matter. The challenge is that parts of the software required for some key capabilities use advanced computer science R&D that is not in the literature.
You can fly the airframe but there is a significant reduction in capability unless you can also produce equivalent algorithms and data processing technology.
The cognitive radar stuff is old tech. I don’t think that concept is really considered a differentiated capability beyond being a sophisticated implementation.
Almost by definition, any classified computer science research would be non-obvious.
The Mossad is great at industrial espionage, and as the US gov alienates and lets “big balls” exfiltrate critical information, they’ll probably see advancements.
Probably don't even need to work that hard. The Saudis got a bunch of nuclear secrets the first round so I am sure F35 info can be brought to Mar a lago.
"their S-300 systems and Sukhois against their maker"
by "thier" you of course mean every single last operational legacy system from the former soviet block and customers.....so all of those ,ummmm, suppliers, are now realising the worth of the promesary "upgrades" they got for thier systems, plus knowing that even glancing east, is not going to go well, and that central europe now has them....."(insert unpleasant imagery here)"
Trump been at this?, what 50 days?
whole classes of sinecures getting shut down, no end in site
This sums up what I've been thinking too - it looks like the USA is sick of being the center of the world and is stepping down from the position right now.
TV series warehouse 13, which houses all the world’s “odd” artifacts. The warehouse was always in the strongest empire through history, it moved itself when world order changes - warehouse 12 was in the U.K. up until the 20th century for example.
The finale had it trying to love itself to China and becoming warehouse 14, but that eventually stopped and American Superiority won over.
Those days seem at an end. The actions Trump had made over the last two months will reverberate for the next two decades at least.
Yes, he was basically warning that short termism, and constantly throwing people under the bus, will be bad for American imperialism in the long term.
"Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
Thieu did meet the same fate, well, he wasn't killed, but he was overthrown and lived life in exile as a recluse.
Zelenskyy will almost certainly suffer the same fate.
The agenda that Trump advanced during campaigns was not "cut ourselves off from the rest of the world". Do his supporters really want this? What's the rationale he advances for this stance and the tarrifs?
What would a president who was beholden to Russians do once elected? I mean -- what's the point of provoking Canada, of all countries? Canada as the 51st US state would be the new most populous state and would cause a huge change in US politics. Not to mention it could only arrive through conquest. So why even propose it if not merely to cause a rift?
After many long discussions, I can only conclude it less about the values of the supporters and more about their psychology.
His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means that the right people get bullied. There's not much deeper thought than that.
It's very sad to see people that I respected debase their own principles so that they can remain proud Trump supporters. Their identity appears tied to the decision, and I know only one person who had the principles to to respond to any of Trump's actions with "OK these people actually have no clue what they are doing." (Which was in response to their treatment of Zelensky in the Oval Office).
>His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means that the right people get bullied.
Yeah, pretty much. Everyone in this thread should be able to craft a Trump line that's easily digestible by his base on this point by now. In this specific case it's "I don't want to give US weapons to anyone who won't act in our (my) national interest on every issue." Once you empower him to decide what is or is not in the US national interest, there's not much you need in the way of convincing. It's only when his policies start hurting his voters individually that they'll maybe start questioning whether what Trump claims is American national interest is actually in their own interest or not.
That's like asking whether a child wants the sugar crash that will come after eating the candy bar. They're not able to see that far ahead. They'll only "get it" when their lives have been made significantly harder, and even then it's not likely they'll be able to attribute their misery to the administration's policies--they could very easily be convinced to blame some minority group or foreign nation.
The supporters are just a rabble bought into a cult of personality. If they know what they think, it doesn’t matter.
The point of all of this is the chaos and destruction of trust in the system. A concept in the early stages of the Russian revolution was that the stage had to be set for a “spark” to light the tinder of the proletariat. Here the Russians had RT, probably fed talking points and material to talk radio and podcast people. Had honeypots seducing strategic politicans and special interests (See Maria Butina and the NRA). Obviously wields influence over Trump.
Once that tinder has been set, the sparks some in the chaos. You have the religious weirdos who think dinosaurs are fake, Elon who believes he’s the protagonist in a sci-fi fantasy, some war-hawks pushing the Artic Dominance thing, and whatever fuckery the gang of oligarchs like Theil, etc have in mind.
Not sure about Canada, but Trump's actions will make a lot more sense if you consider that to American rightists, American leftists are a much bigger enemy than Russians. I think the same is true in the opposite direction. These 2 groups can't stand each other and often sabotage the other's efforts. We can put that aside and ask what's best for the world or America, but as long as there is this hatred between the parties in the US, both sides will act primarily against the other.
> to American rightists, American leftists are a much bigger enemy than Russians.
This reminds me of France in the Second World War. My (questionable) understanding is that they were more worried about the enemies at home than the ones across the border.
The agenda was to leave Ukraine and to have Europe pay for its own defence which is what’s happening here. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t let yourself get manipulated by Reddit-tier arguments.
The agenda is to abandon US allies and let Russia expand however it wants, because that's what Putin wants. Putin wants to erase the Ukrainian cultural identity, which is what Russia has tried to do for centuries.
A week ago Trump killed the western alliance when he made it clear that allies could not rely on the US. This week he has killed the US weapons export business. Not a single country will trust them now. It would be quite an interesting thing to watch if we didn't have to live here.
Even accepting that as true (it’s not — it’s the cost of having soft-power in Europe.) it means that no European, and probably Turkish, Korean, Japanese and Canadian cash will be flowing to the USA defence industry.
Europe has spent trillions on defence since the fall of the Berlin Wall, most of which went to US weapons manufacturers.
What the last decade has shows is relying on external oligarchs for energy and defence is not sensible. The us has encouraged this for a long time. I just hope that Europe actually steps up quickly enough.
It will hurt the us a lot more than Europe, and China will be massively emboldened in the Pacific. It’s a new world order.
Spending among NATO member nations had already started growing considerably since Trump's first term. And a lot of that spending went towards buying US made weapons, though not exclusively.
With this move, any nation will think twice about buying US made weapons. Trump effectively kneecapped the US arms industry by this move.
> Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating non-US alternatives.
I don't know anything about fighter jets but for a lot of other things, Trump could not have done a nicer thing for China. Whatever issues many countries had with China, they are not actively beating most of them in the face. Probably the best years for Xi these are going to be.
That is good. Don't know why you are saying in mocking way. We should move away from unipolar world. There should be stronger US, Europe, Asia, Africa like everyone. Monopoly is bad.
It’s “great” in the sense that this will decimate the US military industry (great or “great” depending on your view of American hegemony). China and Europe will be stronger, and America is absolutely finished as a world power.
Weapons procurement expenses has been shooting up in Europe, I do not get why you only talk about the spoken plans and not the actual things that eventually happens after these plan are designed.
Just a few days ago, Leonardo signed a treaty to develop uavs together with Baykar. A month or so ago, Italian government announced the creation of a joint venture between rheinmetall and Leonardo, sharing technologies to Leonardo and producing some of the >1000 ifvs to buy for the italian army in italy and some in Germany
There is actually a psychiatric disorder (from an Oliver Sacks book)
where the patient wakes up one day with a terrible conviction that
their own healthy limbs are not theirs, and with an overwhelming urge
to amputate them. Sometimes it's so distressing that amputation is
actually done.
"Body integrity identity disorder (BIID), or body integrity dysphoria, is a mental health condition where you feel that a limb or healthy body part shouldn’t be part of your body."
While I agree with you, I think the problem goes beyond military equipment. There’s a lot of risk now in doing business with America in every field, because it’s so unpredictable. Why get cloud or SaaS from the US if they’re one executive order away from being forced to break the GDPR — or shut off service completely, like Maxar in Ukraine. Why build supply chains through America if the price of raw materials can arbitrarily change with tariffs? Sure, it’s a huge market to sell to, but all of those risks have real costs.
I was thinking the same thing. Europe should build its own cloud. All purchased US goods and services are now a potential target for a match of arm wrestling.
Yes, I agree. There was a view that Trump is at least transactional - that so long as you pay (NATO defense spending target, US weapons etc) he'll have your back,.in a subscription basis. Likewise outside defense I guess.
I'm beginning to think that being somewhat reined in by the Republican establishment in his first term, a weakness that the MAGA-crowd sought to correct, ultimately worked in his favor in protecting him from his poor instincts.
It's like he doesn't understand that trust and reliability have a real, tangible value. That's simply a misjudgment. Maybe he actually believes that America is so exceptionally strong that any sort of cooperation ultimately works against it?
It's terribly sad and depressing frankly. A small part of me still has hope that this is going to end badly, in that it turns into a useful lesson, but not badly enough to cause lasting damage. I might be naive.
We’re only seven weeks in, and the damage so far will probably take a decade to fix. I’m not as optimistic as you about the remaining 201 weeks — if that in fact is the number.
I work in IT. We already have several customers projects (various profiles) that paused all their ongoing projects to _start_ migrating their servers and hosted services away from US-based/owned ones towards EU-based ones.
Does Europe lessening their desire to buy US-designed and US-made military hardware benefit or harm the US?
Extend this to other areas of commerce. If the US is no longer a reliable trade partner and its allies lessen their economic ties, is that a positive outcome for the US?
Trump and Biden have shown that the US is an unreliable partner, and that it is no longer going to provide security guarantees when it is really needed.
If I was a foreign leader, I would immediately consider building nuclear deterrence of some sort, and find alternatives to US weapons.
Biden's 'minor incursion' remarks, giving Putin the go ahead for round 2 in 2022:
I think you need to reassess your instrumental subgoals, because this isn’t a game you can win by owning the libs: if Trump fucks the US hard enough, your life is still gonna suck even if everyone blames Biden and hates democrats.
The Netherlands for instance, who gave Ukraine a batch of F16s _was_ a buyer. Logic still stands, US made anything is worthless if it includes a kill switch that can be toggled any time post-purchase.
They all create export agreements where countries have to seek permission to reexport and more. Usually for political plays.
It's also the same reason the Swiss defense industry is now in collapse. Because they refused to allow re-export of ammo to Ukraine citing Swiss neutrality.
It immediately made all Swiss made ammo worthless for all european countries in event of war. Lol
Apparently the Swiss are still talking of revising their law while their defense industry is crying because nobody wants to buy their shit as European countries want to be able to help other European countries. Especially circles like the Nordic or Baltic regions where the countries are extremely buddy buddy.
Sounds like the statement that if an online service is free, you are the product, when in reality the same applies to paying customers as well. You are only exempt if you have full control over it.
It doesn’t matter who owns these planes, the US have shown that they have the power to make them useless and that they cannot be trusted, and that is a dealbreaker when it comes to expensive & important equipment.
Since when was the US in the European Union or even near Europe? How is it like Brexit in the slightest? Why is it the US's responsibility to finance and organize the majority of EU's defense?
PS: I'm from and in Europe. I don't get why it is a good or logical thing that the US should be responsible for the majority of "Western" defense on our territory.
The US is the largest arms dealer in the world and sells ass tons of equipment to the EU. Ain't nobody going to be buying US arms if they think they could be cut off on a whim. Large parts of the US economy are based on arms production and sales, and a large part of the US's non-arms trade is thanks to the US protecting its trade routes and partners. If the US stops protecting its trade, people will stop preferring trade with the US because it will now be vulnerable and near impossible to secure as a smaller nation because it has to cross the largest oceans in the world.
They’re responsible for honoring their agreements and contracts. How can any European state now trust the F-35s that they’ve purchased or going to purchase? All the trans-Atlantic trust built since 1945. Flushed down the toilet in a few weeks. Trust is difficult to build but easy to destroy.
Because it's been a really good deal for the US.
1. European countries have (for the most part) not had an incentive to build military might, which means they won't be adversaries to the US.
2. This dependency on the US has given the US a lot of soft power in terms of diplomatic pull. In the past, the US could just ask Europe to jump, and Europeans would ask how high.
3. In addition to Europe, it's also kept Russia in check, because it has prevented them from expanding to the west.
Brexit damaged the UK's economy and partnerships. The actions the US keep taking are like that but worse. They are pissing off allies in Europe by doing things like this, they are damaging their own economy and partnerships by threatening and placing tariffs on allies for no real reason.
Brexit was about repealing long-term commitments for short-term gain, and a healthy does of FU to closest partners for domestic publicity. Oh and the short term gains never materialised, it was all costs in the end.
I see this as analogous. US is maybe reaping some short term benefits from flipping on its allies, but burning the bridges it very much relies on.
It was a win win arrangement of sorts. Europe got to spend less on defense. US won a reliable ally that would not challenge them much, and help enforce worldwide US dominance. Basically a near vassal situation.
How exactly was the US benefiting in this arrangement? Sounds very one sided if the American tax payer is doing the bulk of spending while Europe is freeloading
The US has allies in return for this spending. A block of people who stand against autocrats and with the US.
It also bought a much more peaceful and free world. Not just nice because it is better for people, but also because it gives opportunity for trade.
Note that it might have been possible for the US to convince the rest of NATO to spend more on their defense without losing the faith of their allies. This sure isn't the way to do it.
Without much background in the politics, the parallel I see is this:
Group A and Group B build an economic partnership under consensual terms generally favourable to both over a long period of time.
At one point, Group A decides to withdraw due to real or perceived inequality. The timeframe of withdrawal is faster than entering, and is insufficient to unearth the complex network of roots that took generations to plant.
When the trunk is pulled, the pain is felt in vast numbers of small ways that add up. These roots are what contain the vast majority of the surface area after all.
The US was never in the European Union, but has always been the leader of NATO and, since WWII, the "Western world". Trump bringing the US out of those positions is a bigger deal than Brexit, because the UK was never a leader in the EU (because of all the internal opposition to it).
The US administration agrees with you. It also decided it doesn't want to sell weapons to the Western world anymore, and that it wants to carry the cost of weapons development all itself without relying on exports.
It also wants to forcibly grow competing defense contractors in Europe.
> I don't get why it is a good or logical thing that the US should be responsible for the majority of "Western" defense on our territory.
Read some history (everything geopolitics after the second world war), you should ask yourself why for 76 years that's exactly what the US did (and perhaps why this is the first time that question occurred to you).
It's because the relationship between Europe and the US is not a mutually beneficial one, the US benefited the most from its power and influence over western Europe, and that doesn't just apply to Europe. NATO and the roughly 128 military bases in 58 different countries don't exist because the US somehow likes to subsidize the military spending of these countries for some altruistic purpose, it exists because it strengthens US influence across the world.
That's soft power, and if it fails, it means war (in total 123 military conflicts since WW2). It's a less bloody alternative to make sure the US gets what it wants because its the stronger party in any geopolitical relationship.
That's the logic behind it. The same logic applies to military aid it gives to Egypt and Israel (that Trump continues to give).
Yeah. What you said has zero relevance. It's not like US is taking away the jets. They are just reducing proactive support because it's a democracy and the people don't want the country to be on the leash of anyone.
It's time for Europe to do its own work on this. As a Finnish guy I know plenty of that, and don't view other European nations as acting very responsible having had their self defense capabilities and believability wither.
I don’t understand, why does the government of US has to give support for privately manufactured weapons. The company that sells the weapons should do that right?
Also what does US gain if all countries are using f16?
The first steps are already underway, nevertheless the European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switch ability - like with the F16s here)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.
We just need the political will to execute - instead of just rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.
Who will want to buy American military technology, when the ability to employ it is at the whim of whoever wins the next election?
Especially as it's clear now than any alliance with the US is fragile at best, and could end overnight depending on which side of the bed Trump wakes up on.
This is yet another "People said the US would never do that, it would undermine their credibility too much, we shouldn't spread FUD -> oops, they did it anyway" moment.
I'm hoping that people eventually understand that "losing credibility" isn't a deterrent when the offending party is entrenched enough that they believe (correctly or not) that everyone will keep buying their stuff anyway.
It makes the US oligarchs comparatively stronger within the US though, with foreign backing diminished, which is probably the main objective of this circus.
I think everyone is underestimating the changes that are happening. Obviously if Trump wanted a prosperous USA, he wouldn't be isolating it, and destroying the federal government and wrecking scientific research and diplomacy across the world.
but an overall poorer US with a permanent far right government under the control of a small group of rich lunatics is better for those rich lunatics.
I don't really care what he wants, but apparently tens of millions of Americans want isolationism. We have tried to make it clear that this will be an economic disaster, but they won the election and they get to make the decisions. So rich lunatics it is.
Really sorry for Ukraine, though. We knew back in November that this meant certain death for them.
Donald Trump really should leave his fragile ego at the door and continue to support the USA's allies at this time. People forget that it was Zelensky refusing to lie which led to Trumps first impeachment.
At the very least this entire 180 and the attempt to humiliate Zelensky in the White House is Trump wanting to enact some kind of revenge.
At the very worst him praising Putin, threatening to leave Nato, threatening other allies, moving troops out of Germany and into Hungary, et all just reeks of something more.. conspiracy theory or not it's pretty disgusting as someone looking in from the outside.
Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. The only reason he ran for president again (a job he absolutely hated the first time around) was so he would stay out of jail for the myriad of crimes he committed. Now that he actually got reelected (us Americans can be incredibly dumb) he's doing everything he can to punish everyone he deems was "out to get him".
Also he adores Putin and Xi and is doing what he can to become like them. There's no conspiracy, Trump really is that much of a child.
I am just blown away by the mental gymnastic that people do when they say things like this, that a person just woke up one day and figured that the easiest way to escape from the "crimes" they committed is to become the POTUS, the second time..
I do not for a second believe Trump thinks this all up himself. I'm not one for conspiracies, but I'm wondering how large the group using him as a mouthpiece really is.
That's the thing. Trump's actions make no sense unless you view them through the lens that he's driving the agenda of Putin.
Then again, even if a global nuclear war broke out, some of his loyalists would still be convinced that Trump is playing some sort of 3D chess and that it's all going according to his masterful plan.
I used to think this, but now I think something different - isn’t Russia a useful domestic and geopolitical tool? Perhaps the US does not want for Russia either to be too weak or too strong, perhaps they simply want them to be useful.
But would Russia's friendship be more useful than Europe's? I can see the logic behind strengthening ties with Russia to keep them from aligning with China, but Russia has proven itself an unreliable partner in the past, so you have to assume that as soon as Russia sees more benefit in fraternizing with China than the US, they'll turn their coats. The EU has been a pretty loyal vassal, even when disgruntled. But I think we've gone over the tipping point now. The US has shown it can't be trusted upon.
I don’t think they are a partner in the strictest sense, they’re more a useful enemy. Keeping Russia in a certain position - weak enough that they’re not a real threat, strong enough that they can represented as one, means they can be used for domestic and foreign political ends.
This view is the only thing that to me makes sense of what’s happening.
RU has reliably said they would respond to NATO expansion or pulling UKR away from RU influence. RU has also reliably sent gas to EU while responding to efforts by US+EU to swing UKR. RU under Putin is geopolitically reliable, at least in realist sense.
EU are reliable vassals, but they're reliable in the sense that their vassalage doesn't add much to strategic balance, especially vs PRC. EU/NATO bluntly net drain in US security commitments and trade balance. Like EU could have been buying 100s of billions more in US arms and LNG, US looking at the 2T+ trade deficit with EU in last 20 years and wondering if that's worth the hegemon privilege. EU + most US partners think they have a tributary system where vassal supports the hegemon, but it's really an expensive client state system where US pays off vassals. Looking at projected US finances - they can't afford to pay off everyone anymore. Also bluntly, US vassals aren't going to reverse payment flow and become tributaries. If it comes to parity burden share as past US admins has pressured, there's less reason to even be "partners" and more reason for EU to try to be their own pole.
Gonna need you to provide some sources on the 'ties to the Ukrainian government' there mate. I don't think there's any doubt that he spent time in Kyiv and posted videos encouraging people to join the foreign legion and help the fight.
But as far as I'm reading there isn't any indication that he had ties to the government outside of some Russian news outlets blaming Ukraine for the assassination attempt.
Besides, you link to a place that requires log in but were no one wants to be seen anymore because it is run by a I-dont-know-what-to-say and is overrun by russian propaganda.
I remember when Europe was launching stuff in space and USA americans were calling this stupid and wasteful, they demanded Europe give th money to Elon
Poland was already pissed off with US arm industry under Biden with slow deliveries of US weapons and started to order more and more from South Korea. I guess it will only accelerate.
Because it's the only mass-produced (and thus relatively cheap) 5th Gen fighter that gives you a lot of advantages over 4th Gen and it will likely take at least a decade before mass-produced EUropean alternatives are available.
But yeah, actual experts with access to hardware should validate if there is a kill switch and if replacement parts / weapons could be reverse engineered before buying any more.
I think I’ll use this thread to make a prediction.
At the end of Trump’s term:
- Europe will still be using F-16s and F-35s
- The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance
- European defense spending will be massively higher, with manufacturing and supply chains that are far less easily disrupted
- The US forces deployed to Europe will still be there, but will be bolstered by more European troops
- Russia will have maintained its status as simultaneously a threat and a non-threat
- Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.
All of which will nicely serve the broader long term interests of the United States.
As it always is, no matter who is in the White House.
They haven’t been pulled out. Just like they weren’t pulled out during his last term. He’s “threatening” to redeploy troops to Eastern Europe from Germany. “Threatening” to do exactly what happens to make the most strategic sense. But it’s a threat. Honest.
> - Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.
I'm sure the Ukrainians will care, and most of us in Europe will too.
I certainly agree that the Ukrainians will care about it very much, but you, unless you are in an Eastern European country, most likely will not.
The reason that you care right now is because it is in US interests that you care. As soon as that changes, you won’t. You’ll be too busy caring about something else.
In the middle to long term though, Europe should and will decouple from the US in defense and tech. US influence will be reduced. European almost made a fatal mistake with Galileo that the US wanted to kill [0] and I don't think they will make that mistake again. F-35, Starlink, air defense will be built by European companies.
The strategic interests of the US stay the same. All of this is posturing which will only improve the alliance which the US leads. Carrot or stick, this president or that president, certain things don’t change. All that changes is the implementation.
John Bolton, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Wesley Clark, and Justin Trudeau seem to be unanimous in their assessment that the things you are saying "don't change" just changed. Of course they could be wrong, or lying, but they certainly aren't acting in concert.
Look what’s happened: the Europeans are now unanimous on the idea that European rearmament is necessary for survival, and have a political environment that allows them to sell that idea to their electorates. Electorates that historically have been opposed to spending on military over healthcare and social programs.
And once that rearmament happens, or is underway to an extent that it’s irreversible, what is the US going to do?
They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance. And the Europeans will say, thank goodness the US is back. Aren’t we all safer now.
I guess the Danes (just like us Norwegians) think the choice of F-35 rather than neighbouring allies' planes was wise... In contrast to the F-16, one can only assume that Trump & co can basically disable the F-35 or at least render it completely useless for battle. Norwegian operation of the F-35 is even completely dependent on American personnel for years to come.
Trump has had it out for Ukraine since he tried to bribe them. Telling them to find dirt on Biden or he would withhold military assistance. They didn't go for it and it is what directly led to his impeachment. While Russia absolutely owns Trump, I believe Trump would do this even if they didn't.
I don't know why anyone trusted us post 2016. Even with a sane President it was always clear that we were dangerously unreliable. And even if this insanity ends in four years it will always recur.
Trump is really a disgusting human being. I'm not a US citizen but this looks an awful lot like treason -- he is actively helping an enemy of the state.
He is saving American money for American people as was promised. You just don't like the fact that the world is heading towards de-globalisation because of whatever other political belief you have that you aren't sharing like most people here.
> while hundreds of thousands get killed or mutilated?
Most of them are russians in uniform, which, as tragic as it is, is a better outcome.
The original invasion force brought tens of thousands of body bags and it is clear they weren't originally meant for russian troops.
If you have any doubt, look up the pre written article that popped on Kremlins website a few days after the full scale invasion about large tragic but unavoidable losses of civilian lives.
Or look at how the convoy that targeted Kyiv contained lots and lots of prison buses and how they brought mobile crematoriums.
It is easy to sit safely here and comment.
If you want to do something better get out and donate and help the fight.
Ahahaha. It's an "open" forum where? Parent poster got flagged, his post no longer readable (unless a user enabled flagged posts?) and you suggest discussion to them. This HN crowd is sarcastic!!
So Russia invaded Chechnya and is now using Chechens to invade Ukraine.
You suggest that Russia takes Ukraine, then uses Ukrainians to invade Moldova?
That is what you are suggesting, right?
Also, my programmers keyboard gives me a very nice peaceful wage. A wage that I partly use to support the Ukrainian defence forces. I suggest everyone to the same: https://savelife.in.ua/en/.
I'm wondering if the deal with Trump and Russia is just favours like they find investors for his questionable businesses and he helps them or if they do have kompromat? Apparently in the days they were entertaining him in Moscow it was quite common to provide hookers and film things and given Trump's character it may not have been that hard to get him to go along. He always looks rather embarrassed with Putin.
Also it could explain this stuff which is hard otherwise.
I honestly think Trump is just impressed by Putin. Like he loves the power that Putin wields and likes and wants that. Trump has consistently expressed his admiration of unconstrained power in all forms. It's not just a Putin thing, though I think there is a little extra going on with Putin.
Otherwise, I think what Trump has said about Ukraine is more or less what he believes and wants. He wants there to be peace, quickly, so that he can be known as a peace maker. He wants to be known as the person who can do the undoable. His henchmen repeat it endlessly - "only Donald Trump could bring peace here". He does not care about the details for Ukraine, and he doesn't really care about the details for Europe - he's wanted to cut loose from Europe since the first term.
In addition, there's probably quite a lot of personal apathy towards Zelensky specifically.
Finally it's possible that his China hawks are also shaping his base tendencies to try to deliver a Russia-China split. But I don't think that Trump really believes in that, it's just the people in his admin trying to make something of this situation. And I don't really believe that even a peace favourable to Putin can deliver the type of split that the China hawks might dream of, at least within this term.
"Trump is an alien impersonator trying to destroy humanity from within to make it easier for the aliens to colonize earth"
That is also a probable explanation for what's happening, if you believe in UFOs and aliens.
Sorry, I mean no disrespect.
As a non-american and non-westerner, it's absolutely wild to see what people are willing to believe when it comes to Trump. Surely, there's a more rational and simple explanation for what's going on ?
It doesn't matter what I think or believe. What matters and what we know is that nearly half of America's electorate does not think that these allegations have any merits. The rest are free to believe or speculate whatever they want to.
My personal farfetched alternative theory is the "Earth X" theory.
Earth X was a comic (lol) with one interesting idea — if enough people preceive "A" as "B", "A" becomes "B".
In the case of Trump, he despises the left wing camp for kicking him off Twitter and prosecuting him. As such he takes their nightmares that they believed in term one and makes them real as personal revenge. For an old man, it is no doubt the most satisfying possible end of his life possible.
Far fetched but more realistic than "He's being blackmailed". Do you really believe the man has any shame?
Yes, the 34 felony counts against Trump proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt were about falsifying business records to pay hush money to pron star Stormy Daniels over their sex affair: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donal...
LOL that was the source? It was a random guy saying he recruited Donald Trump in the 1980s (possibly true), and then a bunch of conjecture based on appearances?
No collaborating evidence? No details on what he recruited Donald Trump for or what they used them for?
Sorry, did you want the Politburo to convene in the graveyard to deliver an official statement? Maybe you're waiting for a really trustworthy Russian ideologue like Putin to examine the KGB records on your behalf?
The story is corroborated by Yuri Shvets and Sergei Zhyrnov. You don't have to listen if the accusation offends you, but the pieces of the puzzle sure point towards kompromat more than glasnost.
The accusation doesn't offend me at all. Please send me the sources for Yuri Shvets and Sergei Zhyrnov (either credible journalists or first hand sources that I can dig through are fine).
I am interested in facts, not propaganda echo chamber discussions.
People commenting here keep speaking as though Americans all decided to do this. Trump didn't even win the majority of votes of those who voted. And those who voted for him had only the most nebulous idea of what doing this would mean. It meant something like "Those people who never treated us with respect will get what's coming. If they don't love us they will fear us."
This happens all the time. "Russia did X." "The UK just did stupid thing Y." "Why are Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
There are always lots of people who disagree with the actions of their government. Some governments -- the US government increasingly so -- punish dissent. Russians, for one, have almost no say over what their government does. Americans in general are not making these terrible decisions. Some cabal is, but even the Republicans, who have all the power at the moment, are mostly just knuckling under to decisions they know are terrible.
I know it's tempting to blame and hate people as nations, but I don't think it helps. In fact, it's how we got here in the first place: firebrands telling nitwits that everyone in Europe or New York City or wherever hates them.
> "Russia did X." "The UK just did stupid thing Y." "Why are Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
This is just the language that is used to refer to the governments as well as the people/culture. It may help to presume that, in most cases, they’re referring to just the governments.
Technically you are correct.
But actually the real winners were the extreme vote suppression tactics.
Without them trump would have lost clearly: read the extremely conservative estimates targeted mostly non-trump voters: https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won...
Simple fact. The empire of lies lost the proxy war against Russia.
Be glad that you are alive. Stupidity, lack of critical thinking, emotionally driven Russophobia, warmongering, corruption in Ukraine and EU. This is the logical result.
You have being saved by the immense patience of Russian people and Kremlin. Everything else is pure madness.
USA is not the economic power of the world anymore. You don't have the industrial base for producing the quantity of weapons needed for conventional war with pear countries. The dream is over.
Now you must cut back all the operational expenses for information war and save what you have for the next big conflict. With China.
And as Victoria Nuland stated in 2014 building the military coup in Kyiv: F* the EU.
My suspicion is Trump is putting pressure on Zelensky (a) because he hates him personally and (b) because he wants an even bigger mineral rights deal. The thinking being, let Zelensky stew in it without U.S. help and suffer some humiliating defeats and let him come crawling back to the table so that he can sell of the majority of his country to the Americans, far more than the Russians will ever get.
It's 2 assholes friendly with each other sharing the spoils of war: Putin gives Trump the opportunity to brag about bringing $500B to the US/maybe it'll be today's Halliburton that'll get the mining rights, for a donation to the new Trump Mansion, and Putin gets everything else.
It's because Russia is on the verge of economic collapse and Putin forces Trump to cancel sanctions critical to them.
At this point, Russia got maximum from this war. These rare minerals deal is just to distract and it's nothing compared to oil, manganese and soil Russia will capture.
Also, I'm struggling to find any reason for Zelensky to sign the deal – no protection, zero chance to get land back. Just thrown under the bus. EU is better option.
Am I reading this right? Nothing has been disabled, they're no longer sending frequency updates? Not even clear if this is related to the current spat.
> the Biden Air Force was able to keep up with the Russian adaptation by constantly tweaking the AN/ALQ-131 frequencies, under Trump, Ukrainian pilots are not receiving updates, and the programs could soon become obsolete.
If so, title seems inflammatory. Not that I support the action, just saying it should be characterized accurately
Does anyone still have any doubts that Trump is helping Putin? He consistently helps Russian fascists using "boiling the frog" method to avoid doing it too rapidly. But it's still glaringly obvious.
Everyone who for voted for this scum should be blamed.
Everything nominally related to Trump is getting flagged, even comments. Several unrelated comments of mine went from neutral/positive to flagged suddenly. Salty folks, or maybe coordinated, probably a little of both.
The guidelines don’t completely rule out politics, and in this case the topic is of interest here since it dovetails with other political issues of long-running concern in the HN community: who owns devices with outside service dependencies, right to repair, etc. The question of whether someone who physically controls an ECM pod can configure it feels a lot like the question about whether John Deere can prevent a farmer from configuring their tractor’s software or an IoT vendor can shut down a service without providing an alternative.
One area where this is especially of interest is everyone considering their dependency on U.S. products. If you live in a country under military threat, questions like what happens if the first strike against Canada involved a malicious Chrome or Windows update or holding back a patch for a vulnerability the NSA wants to exploit is quite an interesting problem.
Given how pervasive politization has become this would suggest that strict adherence to any "politics is off-topic" rule would necessarily involve making the site permanently read-only.
The guidelines seem just vague enough to allow for suppression of topics that the oligarchs are touchy about while appearing reasonable. Tech is inherently political.
There is a simple answer: HN is getting targeted by state-level actors and moderation team is asleep at the wheel, utterly unprepared to act against such a sophisticated threat. Perhaps someone should email dang, that ought to solve it!
That wasn't the reason I think, rather than some people abusing the flag option to keep anything they don't like off the front page, thinking their personal preferences are more important than what everyone else votes.
Please send a polite mail to dang, he is really helpful.
If time permits, this is a good era to learn guitar if you haven't already. Or some sort of creative brain or muscle hobby where screens aren't the central focus.
I don’t think that’s the reason. Maybe there’s just too much discussion of the US and Ukraine. It’s understandable, the political situation at the moment is a big topic, it might risk drowning out other topics.
Beside the fact that it isn't practical, they would need to amend their constitution before they could hold an election during wartime. This is all also ignoring the question begging that the original poster was engaged in with the assumption that holding an election would end the war.
Theoretically, if you exclude the occupied parts from voting, you'd ensure no Yanukovich-like candidate winning.
On the other hand, Trump can always move the goalpost ("Election not held in eastern Oblasts == Sham elections") or even reinforce the view that the eastern oblasts are de facto not part of the Ukrainian state anymore.
And on the knowledge that Russia will certainly conduct strikes on polling stations.
Also Zelensky's popularity has shot up since Trump started aligning with Russia. And the next most likely president is probably even more hawkish towards Russia.
The Russian army can decide to leave and go to their side of the border at any time. It's more complicated than that (war crimes, reparations, all the people that have been abducted) but I still wonder why this is not being discussed at more often - it is totally clear who is the agressor here.
Without going into the merits of this war, NATO - which was supposedly a defensive alliance - did indeed attack Kosovo in an offensive.
So NATO has demonstrated they can be whatever they want when the right time comes. NATO intervention in Kosovo to “liberate it” is also being used to morally justify Russian’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, since from a Russian standpoint it’s exactly the same scenario and they are “liberating” the Russian population in those Ukrainian territories.
That’s apparently where 200,000-250,000 Serbian refugees were expected to go after the war.
But my point is that NATO is a military alliance, to call it “defensive” is just propaganda as it has shown it can be offensive too. And there is nothing wrong with simply calling it for what it is, I believe countries should be able to form military alliances, but let’s not gaslight ourselves.
This is a very naive take, I think. When you are responsible for the security of a nation, you can't just remain passive to the potential threats that shows up on your doorstep. I mean, it would be irresponsible his people if Putin did that and trusted NATO/US blindly to not cross the line, one way or another. (I mean, US could always make up some cooked up justification for the attack, like it has done so many times in the past), So if US is putting missiles near Russian border, even if that is on behalf of NATO, I think Putin is bound to do something about it..
I don't understand what part of that is "Russian propoganda"..
> This should be very easy to answer, but no one ever does.
I don't think this is very easy to answer. The fact that people think it should be very easy to answer this, shows how naive they are, because the reason why country x think country y is a threat could include a lot of information and context that is not available to an external observer.
The Russian propaganda part is that you act as if Russia is defending, while actually they are invading.
Do the neighbors of France need an alliance against a French invasion? Do the neighbors of Germany need an alliance against a German invasion? Why not?
Publicly available, historic facts do not support the argument that russia's invasion was legally justified under any reasonable interpretation of a "threat". Claiming that they do is the propaganda mentioned above. russia is, in fact, the invader, and Ukraine did not invade russia first.
Also, you should respond to the second part of their post, as it contains a viewpoint that you might find interesting, and a question asked of your own viewpoint. Understanding others' viewpoints is a good foundation for coming to agreement.
This is russian propaganda and it is important to know what it says, to be able to recognize it when you see it elsewhere, from the mouth of an influencer, a politician, a comment on the Web etc.
These bankrupt theories have been debunked long ago. The other comments in reply to yours did that well. The first video is literally Putin speaking, the second one is a list of Kremlin talking points, just with an Indian voice.
The term “NATO expansion” for example, is propaganda. Countries that had suffered under the Russian/Soviet oppression looked for protection when the USSR collapsed and requested to join the alliance.
>Not for Crimea. Not for the Donbas. Nothing like that. This idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire, this is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
>If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So no designs at all. The United States decided this man must be overthrown. It’s called a regime change operation.
Sachs is lying about Maidan. Absolute majority of Ukrainians in Western and Central Ukraine supported it, like 80-90%. Millions participated, hundreds of thousands took active part, trying to be at the protests almost every day.the protests lasted for four months, from November to February, which is fairly cold in Ukraine. I was there at the time, yet Sachs just casually drops “I’ve been told they are all paid”, without any evidence.
Surely he didn't mean all the people present there are paid. As far as I understand, when you want some initiate a political change, you pay influencers, and they actually go an convince/gaslight the masses about the need for change.
So all the people who were present there might not be paid, but a lot of prime movers and the require infrastructure might be paid by the interested party.
And the masses are so stupid to do just as they told.
I don’t know what he “meant”, that’s what he said. There was a very clear external event that triggered Maidan, there was another event that made it massive.
The payment of influencers is just as a massive contribution into protests is just a speculation
Russia/USSR been pretty hostile to nations who don't want to join their peaceful and strong brotherhood. Hey they even invaded other communist nations just cause they decide to keep some independence.
If those "unfaithful" countries join NATO this creates problems for Russia to force them to give up their freedom.
And USSR/Russia started a fuss that NATO is a threat for them.
Somewhat surprisingly they are OK with Ukraine joining the EU [1].
> Ukraine has a sovereign right to join the European Union, but this “sovereignty” does not apply to military alliances, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
1. Kremlin says a lot of things so probably they also said Ukraine could join EU. The night before the full scale invasion they claimed they had no intention of attacking Ukraine.
2. Ukraine has the right to join whatever alliance it wants regardless of what russia means.
>Somewhat surprisingly they are OK with Ukraine joining the EU [1].
So this makes sense to me. Basically I think it is US that Russia sees as a threat (because may be US seen Russia as a major threat and wants to break it up).
If NATO is threatening Russia, why didn't Russia invade a NATO country? Russia is a classic bully that chooses to attack the weak, this is the only explanation.
The second video repeats the same argument: the "NATO's eastward march". Putin says Russia had to start the war in Ukraine to stop NATO from expanding too close (he failed as two more countries joined NATO). But when you dig one "why?" deeper you can understand that NATO is not a self-aware entity that expands and threats, it's an alliance of countries that realize that if Russia attacks them and they are alone, they are in the same situation as Ukraine: alone and doomed to begging for help. Whereas if they stand together, Russia will think twice before attacking them. That's why Putin hates NATO so much: he can't freely conquer the Baltics - he'd have done it already in 2008 or so. So he uses anti-NATO rhetoric that people in Russia buy. Maybe they are really afraid Estonia or Bulgaria attacks Russia? Who knows what's in their heads.
So here Putin says he had no choice but to attack Ukraine because NATO (a defensive treaty) was "expanding" into Ukraine. This is false. Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, but its membership request was rejected. And from the start of the war in 2014, it was never on the table - how would a country in a state of war could even dream of joining NATO (which at the time seemed a stable alliance)?
I know some Russians believe in this explanation, it seems very simple: Russia is not setting up nukes in Cuba so from the same PoV Ukraine should not host missiles hostile to Russia. Seems valid, right? The problem here is that Putin, as he admitted in his retracted victory piece[0], wanted to "solve the Ukrainian problem for the future generations" and basically make Ukraine part of his empire just as he did with Belarus. Ukrainians don't want to be his slaves so they chose to fight.
This war from the beginning was meaningless other than for MIC interests. Trump is right in getting out of this mess. Europe did harakiri by sacrificing its energy security and economy for an inconsequential NATO expansion. What is playing out now is the end of Western liberal democracy which is being replaced by Techno libertarianism. European elites who do not see the writing on the wall are writing their own obituaries.
If your "energy security" is dependent on a belligerent state, you don't have energy security. This was something Trump himself has repeatedly criticized the Europeans for, so if you lead with "Trump was right" follow that thread.
Europe has no apparent future - neither economy nor demography is in its favor. EU experiment has failed. NATO is irrelevant as well. Real reason why Trump does not care.
Sure, if we had kept Berlin Wall up and Soviet Union alive then Western liberal democracy would be in a much better state, tech bros would not exist and everyone would be rich, young and beautiful. Please get a grip.
I am tired of being taxed and having the money go to forever wars in other countries. Slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza, destabilizing Russia, and on and on. At least Trump is winding it down in one place. If Europeans think a hardline against Russia is important, then they can pay for it. We're on the other side of the ocean.
This is why the Democrats lost. All they care about is war in the Ukraine. Bernie Sanders supports the war too, but at least he says a few scraps from the table should go to US workers. But he is thrown aside. The Democrats were for the Ukraine war, Jill Stein and Trump were not, and Americans voted for this.
Americans voted for this, Trump is implementing it, and all the warmongers and war profiteers and neocons have left is some neocon press and downvotes here for the majority American opinion which screwy old Trump is implementing.
A lot of that is inherited from Germany not going fully armed again after II WW, and some capable countries not making nukes (Spain and Italy halted their advanced nuclear programs when the US pressured for it, offering them NATO coverage). How could the USA ask now European countries to not develop nukes?
It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. When USA goes to their wars and they ask for help, Europeans, Canadians and Australians oblige. If USA goes full isolationist, the rest of the world must develop their own nukes and their own forces. Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony, and now that they got it they throw it away?
If that's what US wants, it's OK, but I believe some people don't fully understand the reality or the consequences. The US citizen don't pay taxes for Europe protection; Europe citizens pay taxes to buy american weapons.
> It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances.
Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way street with them, they can do nothing for us.
Finland is the most ridiculous case as Stalin could have easily swallowed it up in 1945 if it was in Russia's interest to do so, with little a peep from the West. Them joining NATO in 2023 is an absurdity. A military alliance which should have never existed in the first place - which both Taft and former VP Henry Wallace said in the 1940s.
> Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex.
Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
> USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony
It's more absurd thinking. In 1917 Russia's economy was about Brazil's size. It was like an NFL team playing against a high school team for over a century. Russia barely even had influence over the communists in China.
The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5. When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US that receives an order of magnitude less income from those countries than it previously did. All things considered, it will be a US with both less income and less influence.
Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts.
You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money.
Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA.
> Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports?
Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening?
Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe.
> It's more absurd thinking
It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA.
For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).
First, reps where for Ukraine and now you are flipping like a vane. Second, $100b in weapon aid for Ukraine is just small change and old stuff mostly; and Ukraine could be one of the solid buyers for decades. Third, if you're not a filthy rich you are paying and will pay a lot more for the upcoming years. This could be a real win for US, Ukraine and even probably could overthrow Putin. But with that course of actions the only option for you is to keep stacking eggs.
This particular story is interesting because it's not just about Trump stopping tax payer money, it's about deactivating US made weapons the Europeans have paid for.
No. War is bad for economies. It’s good for firms that produce materiel but on the whole is a net negative. Classic broken window fallacy. Killing your workforce is a drain on economic growth.
So much warmongering going on here. The site where majority used to call to end US as world police, stop interfering and instigating overthrowing government now wants the opposite. This site is surely astroturfed or suddenly people have turned violent.
Many here are anti-war, not pacifist. They disliked the US starting wars. Likewise, they dislike Russia starting wars. That's neither astroturfing nor people turning violent. Quite the opposite: many abhor violence, and letting people invade other countries without consequence does not lead to a world with less violence.
People don't want the US to interfere with domestic politics in Ukraine, they want it to help the national government that has overwhelming support from the local populace fend off an invasion from a foreign nation. They're not in favor of overthrowing the government, they want to prevent that very thing from happening.
I can assure you that there would never be any chance of paid shill brigades shouting down opposing viewpoints on HackerNews. Instead, as I have been informed many times, posts critical of Trump are being flagged. The posts that make it through then naturally are flooded with independent thinkers who just happen to all be in agreement. I mean, how could you not agree with them, right?
Those who disagree about this particular topic obviously deserve whatever they get here. That's why ad hominem rules do not apply to them, and there is no need to be civil when replying to Russian trolls such as them!!
If astroturfing were happening, it would show up as most anyone critical of the astroturf comments being downvoted and/or flagged into grey oblivion, while the astroturf brigade would present as an unusually large number of comments that all agree with each other.
Anyway, I have been keeping track for a small study I a doing on information warfare, and look forward to presenting my research on this. Am still gathering screenshots and other data. So far, I am in awe at the deep thinking and high level of civil discourse on display here. I really like that folks here show respect even to those who disagree.
Deep thinking, civil discourse? Your comment even indicates that if you disagree you are russian troll. How come a left leaning site become a rabid warmongering right leaning one. It seems like left and right switched sides on some issues.
There’s a good reason for people to flag these posts.
It seems like most folks in the comment section didn’t even read TFA.
Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
Per TFA, the US is not actively “turning off” any piece of equipment, they are no longer providing updates (something with which we are all familiar.
Per TFA, this means that the US is no longer providing active support in a country-vs-country battle of electronic warfare. Which is what the title and article says, and very different from what most of you actually READ.
They’re useless because the Russians figured out how to beat them.
When the Russians beat them, America has basically been saying “Okay here’s another version.” And that’s what has stopped.
So all the moaning about how “other countries should be worried about their arms purchases…” or “kill switches in the F-35” or “Americans didn’t want this,” are basically whining about America refusing to provide arms and intelligence/cyber services for free.
And let’s break down one more final assumption. You seem to assume that I should care about Ukraine losing? I don’t. I care far more about Americans being dragged into it for reasons that make no sense. So I’d like for the conflict to end.
And as you aptly demonstrated. You don't care about the security needs of your allies.
As for free support. Have you any clue how much economy of scale is unlocked by selling to other markets ? You profit from the sales, you profit from lower per-unit costs.
Anyway. Whatever, you can count on the feeling being mutual soon, we are so done with you..
Exactly this: the US is not providing software updates anymore. The planes fly just fine. It is going to be tricky if they decide to stop hardware support - meaning spare parts.
And the story continues. This means that no country will want to buy F16s. If you don't get support they are useless. They are eroding really fast the US shine and trust in the world. This is going to have a massive effect on the US economy, internal consumption will not save it. This is the end of an empire while its rich kings are golfing every weekend on the taxpayer dime using federal and local resources.
I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside.
How can any reasonable national leader justify building their military on American systems anymore?
Especially now that the U.S. government is also talking about not living up to its NATO obligations.
This is not gonna hurt the rest of the world. Defense is where the U.S. exports a lot. So cutting back on U.S. weaponry will only help other nations.
The same is true of Tech. Currently the tech industry is global, but expect it to become increasingly national. Considering this is one of the biggest and fastest growing industries in the U.S. and one of its biggest exports, again, this is only gonna hurt thenUS economy.
And the US’s dominance in this space is so high the rest of the world will simply push for open source at no loss to their own economies, since it’s only the US’s profit making will be hurt.
risk of war going hot aside, the long term effect of this is fantastic for the rest of the world's industries
AWS, GCP and Azure looked unbeatable a month ago
but today, if you're a government official in the UK, Poland or Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud provider?
absolutely not
they now have massive geopolitical risks associated with them due to being under the control of the increasingly unstable and authoritarian US regime that will sacrifice 80 years of foreign policy and soft power for a soundbite on fox news
> if you're a government official in the UK, Poland or Germany, would you be recommending AWS as your cloud provider?
They don't. Sovereign cloud in EU has been progressing for a few years now.
Such that some of your mentioned "unbeatable" hyperscalers have already been positioning (e.g. ceasable infrastructure), and some interesting new players on the block. As well as old benefiting from the related market positions: https://www.oracle.com/cloud/eu-sovereign-cloud/
the "sovereign" label from Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Oracle was always a lie, for auditors check boxes
they are not sovereign because they're running software developed by a company liable to coercion by the regime
US companies are required by US law to disclose data to US authorities when requested - no matter where in the world they operate.
Doesn't matter if it is a EU subsidiary. The US parent company must abide by US law and give US authorities the data.
EU citizens cannot trust their data in the hands of US companies. No matter if it is on servers in Europe hosted by European subsidiaries.
The way they are doing it is entirely air gapped systems, run by totally independent companies (not subsidiaries, totally separate legal entities owned and run by other people) that are effectively licensing the software.
So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but they don't have access as they are on another company's servers in another company's data center operated by another company's staff.
> So the US legal system can say "give us this data" but they don't have access as they are on another company's servers in another company's data center operated by another company's staff.
The US institutions don't hesitate to demand their companies to implement secret backdoors in their hardware or software, as evidenced by Snowden's leaks (for Cisco routers) and the Lavabit shutdown (mail company ordered to implement a tap on their clients' data).
Sure, you can have all you described, but how are updates vetted?
Disagree, location matters. It should be technically feasible to implement a code freeze (in software, or hardware) in a sovereign system when external partners’ motives become questionable. That being said in all likelihood that capability is cost prohibitive (speculation), but still co-location is a pre-requisite.
Yeah it's a 100% checkbox exercise explicitly designed to only satisfy the letter of the law.
Unfortunately critical infrastructure providers flock to that, though there are some exceptions.
Cloud is going be far easier to transition for most companies compared to Office, Browsers, OS and Hardware. There are basically no non-american competitors, and so many companies deeply relying on the tech don't have the IT capacity to implement something OSS like Linux.
Yes, but if the government were to spend say 10% of their GPD on defense and infrastructure (Hi, German!), some of this spending might be in grants/tax breaks to help companies make this transition.
I think you underestimate what a capitalist system can accomplish, and how quickly.
One would guess. But at least German's cyber security agency.. Well, if you read German: https://www.heise.de/news/Google-und-BSI-arbeiten-an-sichere...
It isn't fantastic on net, although it could be a net benefit for those industries that compete directly with (former?) American strengths. The other industries will no longer benefit from the highly competitive offerings of US cloud providers, which are for now, better and cheaper than the alternatives.
Even I, the founder of a small startup outside the US, caught myself considering things I never would have before.
Just last month, I had to change my dedicated server provider and was genuinely concerned about hosting my websites on US-based entities. Would Trump impose a tariff to antagonize my country and president? I don't have the resources to keep changing providers and migrating my services.
I ended up hosting locally.
This has been slowly coming so now they are offering the entire data center stack to be operated by European companies in European owned datacenters
AWS and Azure have regional data centers in each one of the countries. Data in EU stays in EU. The CAPEX risk is entirely borne by US companies while being operated by locals following local laws. These states can easily nationalize these data centers if, say, US does something really bad to them. So the geopolitical risk for using AWS or Azure seems low to me.
The idea that we (Canada, any EU country, etc) can "easily nationalize" data centers running on bespoke hardware that we do not have a supply chain for, bespoke software which we do not control or have the source to, running workloads for customers as dictated by business relationships with a (now hostile) foreign company, with the descriptions of those workloads almost certainly stored in said hostile foreign companies local (i.e. foreign to us) servers... is absurd.
It's even more absurd to suggest that this can be done in response to the US becoming more hostile than they are today. By the time they are more hostile, we're talking about open hostilities. It's only safe to assume that they will have exfiltrated all the data they are interested in, and then sabotaged or destroy as much of the hardware as possible (as can be done remotely), making the data center next to worthless. And prior to nationalization it was "their data-center", they were entirely within their "rights" to sabotage and destroy it.
The time to migrate away from data-centers to minimize geo political risk is now, not when the current data centers operators are actively trying to deal damage.
'Data stays in EU' is not true: the US CLOUD act means that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies can and do access data stored in data centers operated by American companies, whether or not they are on American soil.
If you have local warrants.
IIRC the US-UK CLOUD Act Agreement extended the jurisdiction of each parties warrants onto the other parties territory.
I have not looked at the US-EU agreement.
> If you have local warrants
To obey local laws
The USA is going "unlawful", so the risks are technical and real. Local laws do not apply
Similar to that jets effectively would be grounded the second that the US decides they would not be exportable to a former ally, my guess is that not many would, in this scenario, believe a former US owned AWS region in Europe to operate completely autonomously to the degree that it can be “easily” nationalized.
But long before that, I believe there will be other noticeable effects. As someone working in a medium sized European company, with substantial investments across private infrastructures, AWS, GCP and some Azure, I can testify to that since last couple of weeks the Public Cloud Exit strategies around having services being prepared is a very hot topic. This concerns both existing services preparations as well as enforcing standards and configurations for new services.
What does the hardware give you? These datacenters are dependent on US teams, US processes using US maintained software. It's just a bunch of fast deprecating assets, which would need a full reinstall by a team of an AWS-like entity built from ground up.
this is the same tired argument as to why conventional forces are redundant if you have nuclear weapons, due to MAD
the enemy will never put you into a position where the rational thing to do is to launch your nukes (nationalise their data centres)
but they will push and push up against that line
the way to deal with this is gradual decoupling, ideally backed up by legislation and government subsidy
The risk isn't geopolitical but economic decoupling. American tech valuations will take a bath.
Who cares about tech stocks? Have a look at what happens when the dollar loses it's status as reserve currency.
Almost all of the S&P gains have been tech stocks.
Like I said, go have a look at what happens when we lose reserve status and get back to me about how what you just said is in any way relevant. Parenthetically bullshit like this is why I invest in real estate.
Nationalization of foreign assets occurs at an extreme level of hostility that stable European governments would have no chance of doing, unless it had been done first by the other side. It is the kind of thing that happened in Venezuela.
> Nationalization of foreign assets is an extreme level of hostility that stable European governments would have no chance of doing
I see the point. But I would not underestimate the grit of Europeans when backed into a corner, like this
The USA a Europe had very friendly relations for decades, that has changed overnight.
All bets are off
As a reference point, the US has not nationalized Russian or Chinese national's assets. Nationalization is much worse than poor diplomatic relations, on a scale of retaliation it is close to war.
This is an inherent property of closed source proprietary weapons. Which is why gun owners like stuff like the gen3 glock and ar-15 as everyone knows how to make the parts and the open source blueprints are put into manufacture by a gazillion companies to the point PSA shitwagon can compete with a Colt and interchange most the parts.
Maybe Europe should open source a fighter jet and let the world compete on how they'll manufacture it.
As an observation, when the US originally licensed out the AR-15 to other countries they often also had to license aluminum foundry tech at the same time. We take it for granted now because that tech is old.
The ability to scale advanced or exotic materials science at will was a cornerstone of why US weaponry is difficult to copy. People always underestimate this aspect but it is a major reason why manufacturing of state-of-the-art hardware is not fungible.
Europe's weaponry is already somewhat "open source". Many big things like aircraft and missile systems are designed and built with pan-European consortia. As a result, every country knows how to build these things.
Heck, even Italian Agusta sold some of their platforms to a NATO ally with build/iterate/export permissions...
Look up the F-35 sometime. For Germany's F-35 fleet, Rheinmetall was going to build the fuselages and do final assembly in Germany. Splitting up the work like this isn't unique to products from Panavia or similar EU-only consortia.
On tech side, personally I started to move my servers and personal infra to Europe, both physically and legally.
I'll not be able to leave some companies outright, but I'll be taking backups and reducing my reliance fast.
Even further, the US position is getting tougher.
Now there are new ideas getting pushed (through influencers like Musk): that Ukraine "should be sanctioned", that Ukraine "should give their minerals to the US", that Ukraine "should give up their lands", that Zelensky "should resign" and finally that "US should leave NATO".
With such allies, you don't really need enemies.
It’s really bizarre that we are looking at a near future where our best ally is Russia and West Europe/Canada and everyone else who was our friend is now our enemy. You literally couldn’t write this up as fiction and be taken seriously a decade ago.
You'd better report your wrongthink. We, Oceania, have always been at war with Eastasia, Eurasia was always our ally.
US's Republicans have been so afraid of '1984' that they took it as an instructions manual.
[flagged]
We have an authoritarian nation conducting a literal unprovoked invasion of a liberal democratic country, this entire thread is objecting to the United States STOPPING providing materiel to said country . . . and yet people still think defense contractors are the "bad guys."
It's morbidly fascinating, really. If there's anyone who could be accused of profiting from blood money in this instance, it's companies like Sukhoi and Kalashnikov Concern.
We have a border conflict on the other side of the planet that doesn’t involve America, except insofar as defense contractors are ginning up a campaign to have american taxpayers bankroll one side of that war.
And throwing around words like “liberal democracy” is just how the neocons get americans to turn their brains off and support such endeavors, as with the iraq war, and as with vietnam and korea before that. It actually doesn’t affect america whether other countries are liberal democracies or illegal democracies or something else, so long as they don’t attack america and keep terrorists who might attack america at bay.
The present administration isn't really planning to cut military spending, they just want to redirect it. $4B of military aid was recently approved for another country.
Here's the budgetary outlook: You'll notice that defense spending is projected to have a slight increase in real terms, or a slight (0.1%) decrease in terms of fraction of GDP.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172
Yep. DOD spending is likely to shift, but not be reduced. The major firms are probably going to see some contracts cut or tougher competition from the likes of Anduril in certain domains.
DOD spending in IT-related efforts may also shift, Palantir will be a major contender here.
What a reductionist cliche of a moral position.
Are you the mythical "ethical consumer under capitalism" I've heard so many legends about?
addendum: sibling comment's point is more relevant
Very well played!
https://www.abhafoundation.org/assets/books/html/1984/24.htm...
“Our best ally is Russia” is a nightmare scenario; ask anyone else in the CSTO how responsive Russia is to allies’ needs.
And a bit further back, ask anyone who the Red Army helped liberate in WW2 what has happened later, and how long it took the Red Army to actually withdraw.
The Manchurian Candidate was along these lines, though it has an (early) happy ending, before the candidate becomes president, at least in the movie. I haven't read the book.
The shift to bailout Russia is no surprise to anyone taking notes, there is a long LONG history
https://reddit.com/comments/j6z8eh
It was idiotically unbelievable fiction until literally the day before Trump took office, even with project 2025 readable on the internet.
In fact, we discussed how the whole idea of an USA ex-president calling up a personal militia, trying a coup that could reboot a civil war, giving up half way, and not ending up in jail or even politically castrated was garbage fiction until 5 jan 2021.
The game Tom Clancy's End War is basically about a quadripolar world (you play as Russia, USA or Europe), where Russia hacks the EU WMD network and uses it to attack an American space-based weapon, using that as a false flag operation to make America go to war with Europe. Russia "joins" USA in an alliance and attacks the EU from the east while the US attacks from the Netherlands and Denmark.
It really makes you feel like you're in the middle part of the 1980s.
I lived through the 1980ies, and I still have trouble processing the idea that the anti-Soviet, rah-rah patriot types that loved movies like Red Dawn are now in bed with the Russians. It's just bizarre.
It used to be that fascists and communists were our most hated enemies. How the tables have turned!
EDIT: more seriously, though, throughout the 20th century America hewed much closer to fascism than communism. It's always been there, if not always out in the open.
[flagged]
And that made sense, as there was a point in time that Russia did seem like it had a chance of becoming a normal democracy. At some point even the idea of the EU membership was floating around.
By the 2008 attack on Georgia it was clear that there is no democratisation of Russia, but some people didn't want to believe it for a long time, not even after 2014 attack on Ukraine.
EU membership was never feasible. Russia is too large population-wise, it would have threatened franco-german leadership of the EU. The EU, as it was back then was hanging in a delicate balance, where France and Germany usually had to agree on something to get things done, but other countries could form blocks of convenience to push their own demands through (eg. UK, Nordics and the Netherlands on fiscal discipline, or the Baltics, Visegrad and countries from the Balcans on immigration). France and Germany would not have wanted to lose that much influence, Poland would not have wanted to be between Russia and Germany again (politically speaking), and hatred of Russia runs rather deep in countries of its former empire.
Sure, back when Russia looked vaguely like a democracy for about ten minutes.
We are allied with lots of non-democracies, including ones that invade their neighbors (like Saudi). That part is irrelevant.
Obama's 100% correct point was that Russia was incredibly weak economically. Obama never said we should disengage "with the rest of the world military." Bush, Clinton, W. Bush also tried to normalize with Russia. Everyone hoped Putin was sane. Obama strengthened our alliances. And he has been proven right. Ukraine has depleted Russias military stockpiles and their National Wealth Fund. Russia was weaker than people thought.
It's almost like things have happened between then and now.
> You must have been traveling in some neocon circles a decade ago. But normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world military was the goal for us liberals back then
I don't know which is more wrong, the broad claim here or the claim that you are a liberal.
I mean, what you describe was generally the case...but between the fall of the USSR and the start of the new US-Russia Cold War around 1998-1999, with the belief that Russia was on a path that, while rocky, led to Western-friendly democracy with the right support.
From 1999-2014 (but generally declining through that period) engagement was viewed as useful, in part because Russia’s hostile turn was seen by some as curable with reassurance, but more because Russia was seen as a generally hostile generally but having useful alignments of interest in some parts of the world.
But by a decade ago, 2015? “Normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world militarily” was certainly not a common, much less the dominant, American liberal position on foreign policy.
Well, there was a point when everybody, including European politicians, wanted to normalize relations with Russia. But the guy had a different view and chose to invade Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. At that point some people still chose to believe that he can be civilized. It backfired badly in 2022. So now Trump trying the same thing and pretending to be Putin's buddy and trying his best to make Ukraine miserable is just sad.
Obama’s dig at Romney was well after the invasion of Georgia. what Obama correctly understood is that Russia’s designs on Eastern Europe don’t actually matter to America.
Dont forget the first and second chechenya wars.
Russia didn't pivot its policy in 2008, it did so a decade earlier, when the second Yugoslavian war was carried out without buy-in from it (the first one was, to an extent, a joint NATO-Russian operation).
And then the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq[1], again, against Russia's protests, and by that point, that's like two countries attacked (one invaded and occupied) by NATO/most of its members, and you'd have to be an idiot to look at that and not notice that it shifted from a purely defensive alliance to an offensive one. [2]
Putin isn't an idiot, he looks at this and starts surrounding himself with buffer states, through both soft and hard power. Unfortunately, soft power isn't working out great in this, for various reasons.
---
[1] It's weird how when you mention Iraq in isolation, people think it's indefensible, but when you mention it in the context of Russian anxieties, all of a sudden, we are all bending over backwards to explain how it was perfectly justified, and it wasn't unprovoked aggression against an uninvolved country.
[2] It's been 14 years since NATO attacked a country, though (Libya in 2011 - if you squint hard enough, Syria might not count), so I guess we could once again reframe it as a defensive alliance. [3]
[3] It the US continues on it's insane trajectory and withdraws, it will definitely become a defensive alliance, simply because it will lack the ability to project power.
Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in the EU?
The US cannot support it's military projection without allies. If every US base has to be ran as 'fortress USA' the budget will break. Even just losing a few strategically located bases will greatly increase the cost of power projection.
All Europe has to do is stop all local support for US bases and force all resupply to be done via the US military and the bases existing infra, not via ANY civilian infrastructure (no civilian airports, no civilian trucking, no civilian shipping). That's just one pain point in the USAs soft underbelly that we didn't have to worry about before because we had allies.
But why do we need “power projection?” Why do we need bases all over the world?
You asked this exact question last week and I answered it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply to you, why bother commenting?
You mean why do we need Greenland and Canada?
US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of information out there for you. Not sure how an American can get to be an adult without understanding the background and reasoning.
We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to include limitations on their own power in their constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long, thought out standing position of our country that has 70 years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.
I think that's kind of the point. The Trump admin takes a very isolationist view of things, so I don't think they even want all those international bases.
It's not the point for the MAGA types. They want the power AND deference of the good old days, not actual feeble pullback and irrelevance. They think Europe paying it's share means Europe will pay for OUR military presence. Add on their kids no longer having access to military jobs/path to education and those communities will start to freak out. Trump wants to project power in the middle east. That's current done out of European bases.
tell that to Greenland.
That's about two orders of magnitude more thinking than they're actually doing.
> Leaving NATO is not a one way street. If the US leaves NATO, then the NATO countries can also stop supporting the US. How many components of US weapon systems are made in the EU?
For example, 15% of every F35 is made in UK.
Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance for short-term gains.
I think that in a few months, we will see the U.S. economy doing very well and somehow rebuilding its industrial base. In the long term, U.S. influence and wealth will make up a much smaller share of the world’s wealth than it does today.
He does not rule out recession. Why do you think the US economy will be doing very well because of his policies?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I do think there will be a recession yes. But within 6 to 18 months, the recession could be over with and growth will come back as the US rebuilds some of its industrial base. US imports and exports will decrease over time.
Note: it is my prediction at 70% (e.g. I think there is 70% that it will happen).
It could be over, but it won't be over, because he can't be trusted, changes position on important issues every night, and this does not create environment welcoming to investors. Nobody sane will commit to longterm investment. No investment, no growth.
> US imports and exports will decrease over time.
So prices will rise and and government expenditures will fall. Where exactly will that growth come from?
I think companies who want to access the large U.S. internal market will have an incentive to have factories in the U.S. That will likely fuel growth. The growth will be coupled with less imports and exports given nationalism and tariffs.
And if it is what the Americans want why not. But as the U.S. take this new direction, let's make sure former allies are treated with respect and given proper notice of the changes so that they can adapt their economies and defense postures.
It usually takes five to ten years to move a factory from one country to another, and it costs an enormous amount of money that mostly will not drive new profit. Costs in the US will be higher also. There is more to consider in moving a factory to the US than market access.
Could work. Or they could just decide to invest elsewhere.
I guess if the economy is in a recession and people spending less it is not the best place to invest. Unless it is for cheap labor but then you'll have problems with export tariffs.
So far we’ve only traded our long term dominance. I’m yet to see any short term gains or even prospects of those.
Unbelievable amount of damage done in just a month.
No one is going to invest in building the US industrial base unless there's stability.
Assuming that does happen, it won’t be “in a few months”. At best, this is a timeline measured in years if not decades.
I don't even see the short term gain.
Overspending for decades. Rationalization requires economic pain. Big surprise: restraint lacks the support pissing money every which way enjoys.
I keep expecting him to rally his support base and attempt to overturn the 22nd amendment. Short-term "winning" might be exactly what he needs to rally them.
Honestly I expected it on his last term.
Get out of an unwinnable war with minimal losses and re-group for the war that will really matter. China.
One would think it would be a bit beneficial to have some allies in that war...
There’s close to zero chance the US would win a war with China in the event that it attacks Taiwan. Either china wins quickly, or it takes out all the assets which make it strategic in any case.
In fairness, he's getting kind of old.
US economy definitely won't be doing well.
> Totally agree that Trump is trading long-term dominance for short-term gains.
I'd say the other way round - rebuilding everything that was outsourced will take a long time, so hard times are ahead. In the long term, I hope the USA will be less dependent on China.
But at the same time the way it was done completely destroyed the credibility of the USA as a reliable partner, both in trade as well as military relations. Countries will organize new treaties, and the USA will be a powerful player but with far less influence than before.
There has to be cheaper, faster and easier ways to bring coal mines and steel plants back to USA?
For the coal mines, maybe you could fund them through some museum budget?
I think the administration is gambling on being able to consolidate global power before anyone is going to have a chance to build anything. Europe is completely reliant on the US and US technology for defense right now, these systems took decades and trillions of dollars to build and refine, and an 800 billion EUR investment does not magically create a military industrial complex overnight. Decades ago in my early career I briefly worked on some logistics software for the Joint Strike Fighter project and had some contact with a couple of the army of contractors working on the project. The scale and complexity of this effort blows away anything else I've ever seen in my career, which includes a number of multi-billion dollar infrastructure and nuclear power projects.
Trump talks about invading Canada or Greenland and people act like it is a joke. I don't think it is.
The US is in a position to completely dictate to Europe what they will or won't do, using Russia as a proxy for now. We are 48 days in. A couple of weeks ago I replied to someone suggesting the US could provide weapons to Russia with disbelief. I no longer consider that an impossible scenario. Europe stops buying F35s? Trump tells Europe that if they don't buy them he's going to sell them to Russia. I mean that's a relatively tame response compared to the options on the table.
Right now the only chance for Europe is to stop this madness in the US. We have this "take it down" act, the executive order to produce a report advising whether or not to declare martial law, the January 6th pardon of the Proud Boys who are now effectively a paramilitary force of thousands waiting for Trump to deploy. These are all familiar elements in history and I think we are in for a bloody, bloody summer. I think we're going to see government forces opening fire on protesters, martial law declared, and the implementation of Chinese style suppression and crackdown on dissent online. Maybe attempts to strip US citizens of their citizenship and "deport" them for good measure, anything to try to sow fear into average people to not step out of line. If the administration is successful in quashing the opposition and getting everyone to go back to work, Europe could easily next on the chopping block. Remember all the things Bannon said about the EU during the first administration.
This might be the most delusional comment I’ve ever seen on HN. Crackdown on dissent online? That’s the explicit policy of our “democratic” European “allies” that the Vice President openly criticized in Munich. Opening fire on protestors? What protestors? And this talk of a thousands-strong Proud Boys “paramilitary” is paranoid nonsense.
There have been street protests here in Montana (red state) already (because he fired large numbers of national park and forest service employees and said any foreign students who made online comments supporting Palestinians should be deported).
Well I hope you are right. All of those things were already either done or tried by Trump during his last term. The trajectory is leading towards further escalation.
The protests will escalate in the summer, when the weather is warmer, more time has passed for awareness of what is happening to soak in, and students are on school break.
How do they justify buying US war tech? By understanding what the US will do to their country if they don't buy it, and figuring out how to sugar coat this to their populace.
This simply isn't true. Various countries bought F-35 even after recognizing it's far more of a geopolitical PITA than Rafale or Gripen because F-35 is world-beating. It is that much better than the competition that putting up with various restrictions is almost always worth it.
Where the competition is less slanted, yes you see countries selecting Leopard for their MBT over Abrams (the US won't sell the advanced Abrams armor packages). But when it's F-35 vs. literally anything else, the competition is for second place. You only really choose something else when F-35 isn't an option at all. Threats aren't needed when you just have to do a fly-off.
Countries do have choices and many did choose the us as security provider. Some thirld world countries recently switched away from russia and/or started to built versions of their own design of previously in license produced weaponry. Examplw: India
And Turkey buys from both. But India and Turkey have a degree of independence that small European nations do not have. The latter are entirely reliant on NATO for their security, and until recently this meant being friends with the USA.
I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
Nope, turns out that the American Empire is being dismantled by something else entirely. A subset of the populace that feels jealous of those with more and scared of social change, reacting to try to hurt their fellow country men? A megalomaniac leader who is somehow completely controlled by Russia? It's hard to get the full picture.
The myth of how much harm "leftists" can do/are doing in the US is probably what got you all here. It's another McCarthyist boogeyman, and it's not even being sold well -- a lot of the marketing's just outright lies, and people are eating that up.
> The myth of how much harm "leftists" can do/are doing in the US
Every single bit of the right is projection. "The left hates America" = we (the right) will dismantle and destroy this 250 year experiment
The funniest part is how MAGA are literally rabid against anyone left of Bret Baier while embracing the overtly obvious Russian propaganda to the point where you start feeling sorry for them when the outright repeat Russian talking points e.g. deep MAGA don’t care a single iota for about anything more than 20ft from the US shores (because America first!) and yet they will have the strongest and most deeply detailed opinions on Crimea lol
During Trump's first term in office I developed a hobby wherein I would get hardcore conservatives to unequivocally support various talking points from the Communist Manifesto, normally in response to them bitching about "leftists". This takes a lot less effort than you might think.
Could you share one or two examples of how that went? :)
I mean it's not like I told them they were agreeing with communist propaganda at any point during the conversation so from everyone's perspective in the moment everything was going fine. The typical workflow was something along the lines of them bitching about liberals which is fine by me until they misapplied the term leftist or similar at which point I'd normally inject a non-sequitur about how bankers and execs are piling up cash with a forklift while the folks that actually work for a living can't hardly get by. This never gets any pushback and provides the perfect opening to quote your choice of communist propaganda, which also doesn't get any pushback as long as you aren't goofy enough to attribute your sources. ;)
My favorite example is probably getting my wife's uncle to agree that the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains mid-rant about how right-wing militia groups are the only folks in the country with a finger on the pulse and how they were absolutely going to overthrow the federal government with a selection of canned goods and small arms...
That’s the most frustrating part. What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else. They’re so afraid of empathic policies it’s no wonder the country is falling apart.
It has completely fallen apart to any outside observer. It will take decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair.
The damage is already irreversible on any near to medium term timescale - how bad it gets on an absolute scale is the only thing left to speculate.
> decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair.
It will easily take a generation just for people to find solidarity and courage again.
Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in the US fought monied interests for centuries.
It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their legislative puppets.
It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of progressive-minded people for the rich and their legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.
The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible.
The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it.
Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.
Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly.
I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.
A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch.
The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out.
We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget.
Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced.
[1] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...
Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline.
The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan.
I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.
Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock.
Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
But in the UK this effectively gives power to the executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and most ruling party MPs will Have a government position - especially if the majority is slight.
Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) -
What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here).
I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.
Which other major countries have happier publics? The UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK citizens certainly aren't happy with low economic growth (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in Germany, etc.
I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed countries seem much less prone to irrational, life changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running through the American population that is causing people to “break”
Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab countries are particularly low, even though people there seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to escape to Europe.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...
The US and Europe are culturally quite close, unlike to Arabia, so I think the comparison actually holds.
There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally much more like a highly developed version of a Latin American country than a European country. Over time I find myself coming around to this idea.
Canada?
But the Donald is doing everything he can to stop that.
> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law
It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law.
Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.
The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy.
If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.
No, every country is one election away from this shit-show.
Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air.
At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order.
I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
It's quite telling that you see this as remotely comparable to how the executive is being conducted right now.
Its quite telling to me that you don't.
In both cases the executive branch is overstepping legal bounds and attempting to take actions that it isn't legally authorized to do.
Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is the exact same thing as dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't see them as the same. We don't even live on the same fucking planet.
The issue isn't why laws were breached, only that the executive branch intentionally broke them.
The why behind it matters most for how emotional of a response it will invoke, but maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.
In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.
Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things?
I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.
There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.
And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.
Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.
That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.
If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about.
Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction.
Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place.
Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
Just wait till 2028!
"for people to find solidarity"
That's not going to happen with the way tech/algos are exacerbating the divide.
If you have engineering or product skills, now is the time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire with fire.
We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic, empathetic software in the world and putting it into people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure for the common people.
We already have the tools. The problem is marketing, FOMO, etc. We can use stuff like Cloudflare restrictive DNS, a Pihole with additonal lists (like social media), a VPN, screen time or app usage timers, etc. Will and self-control are what's lacking.
The problem isn't marketing or FOMO. The problem is the average person barely understands what you just said, and we can't expect them all to become domain experts, especially when many people lack the fundamental research skills and experience needed to intuitively grok these technologies.
We have to use our intelligence and expertise to make applications which take care of users and their privacy, without them needing to suddenly become overnight computer experts. Most of the tooling I see today has (understandably) massive UX issues and is largely relegated to at least the mildly technical.
We need new and open Facebooks, TikToks, calendars, operating systems, etc. which protect and empower people but don't complicate their lives and stress them out, which leads to security and privacy fatigue. Even my current operating system, macOS, is so intensely user-hostile and obfuscated off the happy path, despite being heralded as a champion of human-oriented design.
We need a modern GNU-like organization but focused on building the social/web tooling that most people today are using.
Almost anyone who cares about their privacy should be able to Google how to improve it, find an article about VPNs, and sign up for Nord VPN (pretty user friendly and commercials everywhere). Dive just slightly deeper and you can find information on DNS and set the VPN to use the DNS you were recommended.
Most people don't care enough to even ask the questions. Creating competing services were the value differentiation is privacy (likely at the trade off of cost or quality) is bound to fail for that same reason.
Which is increasingly looking intentional
Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to make money. This sort of issue has been building for a long time. It's based on abundance of resources and availability of choices. As we have more time and money to spend on things, we can make more independent choices and take positions on issues that we didnt even think about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks to tech).
We've known it is intentional since Cambridge Analytica at the latest.
That wasn't about creating a split but rather taking advantage of an existing split, right?
The problem right now isn’t the rich. The problem is that half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You can’t rally the people against this when half the population is in favor of it.
I’m sure there’s a good argument that wealthy people and a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but it’s too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in public sentiment if this is going to change now.
Even if the outcome had been different in November. We’d still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot. The fundamental problem we have right now isn’t that Trump is President, it’s that about 50% of those who bother to vote think he’s worthy of it.
It’s still the wealthy, leaning on social issues to create a democratic majority
Don't think you can address the one while not dismantling the other. Otherwise you're lucky to be trading water.
It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line. Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta, Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going to be dark.
I never thought that. They have always just played along with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don’t get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was because the leadership truly thought that was important deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but even then not fully, as he still cares about business more than principals, though he has more to lose personally.)
Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is that it's all just opportunism in either direction.
Zuck is probably the best example.
What makes you think it will be repaired? I’ll go for America splinters into at least two countries.
Most authors that look at the subject have usually proposed 3+ groups post-balkanization. Tends to depend on whether it's simply an "After America" balkanization or a complete apocalypse scenario. Table top roleplaying games are full of speculative fiction on those kinds of concepts. Nukes, or zombies, and sometimes black swan "magic" tend to be rather popular.
After America would be like the Fall of the Roman Empire, or the collapse of the Chinese Jin (romance of the three kingdoms) and Tang (five dynasties, ten kingdoms) eras, usually because of human bickering over power and control. Occasionally, systems like Shadowrun have a "mild" apocalypse that mostly serves as a catalyst for balkanization. Whatever vestiges of a state remained fall apart under the stress.
Complete apocalypse tends to be something like large scale devastation from a known threat that final gets used (nuclear, biological, dangerous machine sentience) and everybody's too busy dealing with their own issues to care about larger ideas like a continental federal state of "America."
Either way, tends to result in 3+ most of the time. From looking at the Roman Empire and the multiple collapses of China though, it really does not take anything especially dramatic to result in pretty severe balkanization. Often its the old "Blue and the Grey" divide and then most of the West just does their own thing. Occasionally it's more like East Coast, Heartland, and often the West still is not really included.
The result for the West has actually been one of the weirder parts of reading a lot of those settings. Often this undercurrent that the West has never really been a part of "America." The heavily populated East is still mostly fighting over the same issues with each other, the lightly populated West is just some far away land they occasionally pay attention to (mostly California and Texas).
For this to happen, the US population is probably too old on average, and too overweight.
Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry people are easier to provoke into fighting.
What is more likely is that significant portions of rural America break off and the part that's left doesn't feel it's worth it to take it back by force.
A lot of rural area across the country have movements to break states into pieces, or join other states. I don’t think most are very serious but at least two of them are serious enough.
One, there are a few counties on Oregon that want to redraw the boundary so that they become part of Idaho. This, I think, is only mildly serious.
The second is the border of Indiana and Illinois, which is serious enough that the Indiana state legislature has voted to create a commission to work on it. It was a bipartisan vote, too. Because there are a number of rural counties in Illinois that would like to join Indiana, and two urban counties in Indiana that say if the option is on the table they’d rather be part of Illinois. Such a thing would need both states to agree and then send it on to Congress, but ultimately I don’t think anything will come of it.
When you look at state funding, these urban counties are sending more tax dollars to their respective state capitols than the states are spending in their counties. In the case of these rural Illinois counties, the state is spending between $5 and $6 per tax dollar collected. Does Indiana really want to take on such welfare queens? And give up some of their few donor counties in exchange? It seems hardly likely!
That’s the rub all across the US. The urbanized areas are subsidizing the rural areas. Are the rural areas prepared to do without such subsidies? They can say “the cities can’t live without the food we grow”, but the entirety of human history shows that the cities always come out ahead in these transactions.
The Jefferson area of CA seems about as serious as Oregon.
With out current structure of governments, as we get around/over 80% urbanization, the rural areas will just get steamrolled and want to break away due to a lack of agency. If you study people in the "western Idaho" area and on the Oregon coast, it would be easy to see that they are two different nations.
Also,do you have e a source for the 5x tax collected number? The 5x seems really high. I couldn't find one for Indiana, but Illinois shows it's <2x.
This study (I think it has since been updated)
https://news.siu.edu/2018/08/081018-research-shows-state-fun...
Shows that on average it is about 3x. There are more detailed per-county numbers available in the actual study.
The real losers are the suburban counties surrounding Chicago. Cook County is only slightly shafted.
Yeah, pretty much in line with what I was seeing. Just depends on where the lines are drawn for downstate/southern.
https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/state-tax-dollars-b...
Right. So anyway, if various states (or the whole country) breaks apart based on urban/rural divides, the urban areas have very little incentive to try to reunite. It’s a losing proposition for the rural areas.
My personal opinion is that our state and nation legislatures have way too few members given our current populations. For example, the US House should have some sort of dynamic membership count: the smallest odd number such that when you run the apportionment algorithm the smallest state has 3 members. That’s probably somewhere around 1100 members (just spitballing).
Economics aren't the only factor, so the rural areas may not care so long as they are free. That also assumes the rural areas keep the same service levels and regulations. It's possible they could create conditions to lure some industries to them. They would also have to raise food prices to deal without subsidies. It's likely many services would see reductions, such as road maintenance, anything heavily relying on grants, and possibly schools. Certainly the colleges in the article would be closed.
Decreasing the ratio of constituents to representatives won't really work. It may work at the margins, but you will still have the mismatch in proportions between urban/rural.
California has multiple times brought up splitting out into multiple states, its made it as a prop a few times too. I think most people want it to happen, its just tough to figure out what the best split would be
> I think most people want it to happen
I don't believe that at all.
I believe the state as a whole added a ballot initiative for 2028 to split from the US
Well, also overweight people can create havoc with drones.
Three countries. Boston Dynamics vs Figure & 1X vs Tesla
The youth are also of poor quality these days. It was one thing in 1860 when a given 18 year old was built like an ox from hauling bales of hay or whatever else. Today most 18 year olds are sedentary. We don’t even do the mile run in gym class anymore.
Gen Z are a lot fitter and drink and smoke less than my Gen x peers afaict. What’s more, the 90th centile Gen zer is a -lot- fitter. Not everyone needs to join up…
Flying drones isn’t particularly demanding in terms of strength.
Well, looking into really old draft records, you will find a lot of disqualified recruits with bad health - tuberculosis, parasites, or general bodily problems caused by malnutrition.
But yeah, there also was a lot of physically strong young people to choose from.
Yes, exactly. Some of the federal farm subsidy and low-income nutrition programs we have today came out of findings in WWII that many potential recruits who had grown up during the Great Depression were literally malnourished: too weak and underweight to be combat effective. While the new HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is kind of wacky and has terrible policies in many areas, he at least recognizes the serious state of youth obesity and poor nutrition.
Don't forget school lunch programs were pushed by the military in the 1946 National School Lunch Act (America's Great Age to MAGA) to improve the fitness of potential recruits. Programs the Republicans now attack as 'woke' nonsense.
Halfway to WALL·E
Who knows what the next American civil war would look like.
Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down to the military.
The military have the tanks, the air support, the logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support equipment, and all the training to use everything.
A split within the military, that gets real ugly real fast.
I think any civil war would have a split within the military, because in your premise that they're using tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.
Lots of destroyed keyboards?
Stealth donations to unauthorized political parties through OnlyFans or meme coins.
[dead]
>What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else. They’re so afraid of empathic policies it’s no wonder the country is falling apart.
Maybe on economic issues. On certain social issues it's definitely not "centrist" and arguably further left than other developed countries.
I agree, but would add that many issues (left and right) here are more extreme. I think two things are a self-reinforcing cycle driving both ends of the political spectrum to extremes. First, hyper-partisanship has emerged where it was formerly held in check by social norms within our political institutions. Second, US politics has become a national pastime, replacing sports and other things in our attention. Everyone is able to be part of the commentator class by virtue of social media (I cite this thread, including my comment, as an example of this).
Normie centrist views tend not to garner much attention either in traditional media or in online forums. Instead, we tend to focus much more on the issues that clearly and quickly establish our membership and bonafides in a particular group.
The same extreme-voices-get-heard feature gets recapitulated through our political system. Especially the rise of getting primaried from the left or right. Break ranks with your side? Get primaried. The result is that, to get heard over the fray, political candidates need to articulate more extreme views and stick to them.
Lots of words have been spilled about how various electoral reforms could get us out of this mess. For me, I believe ranked choice voting and open primaries represent an optimal trade-off between "legal, and plausibly implementable" and "yield biggest improvements to electoral system." A major complaint against ranked choice voting is that it tends to bias for more moderate centrists, which I think would be a not-bad problem to have.
For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour, "defense", energy, firearms, speech, religion and basic human rights, both main parties in the US are far right by Western standards (and true outliers for most).
It's really only identity politics where the left is actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
>For economics (both sides) healthcare, labour, "defense", energy
Those are arguably closer to "economic" than "social". Energy is plainly economic. Even healthcare and labor at the end of the day, boil down to dollars and cents (ie. how much people are paying for healthcare and how much they earn).
>speech
Having the strongest free speech protections in the world is "far right" now?
>religion
The Republicans might be "far right" on religion, but I don't see how the Democrats are. They can certainly be more secular (think the CCP), but at least they're not obviously religious. Compare this to the UK and Denmark which have state regions, and the christian democratic union in Germany.
>basic human rights
Clarify. "basic human rights" has been muddled by the left to include mean stuff like "healthcare", as well as the right to mean "right of babies not not get aborted" and "kids not being groomed".
If you think the UK state religion is in any way relevant to this then you are sorely mistaken. The Church of England has little to no influence on daily politics and is a historical oddity. All political parties, left and right, are essentially secular. Religious politicians basically have to keep their faith quiet while gaining and maintaining office. Blair is a good example of this.
> It's really only identity politics where the left is actually on the global left, and then it's far-left.
That rings true, but how did the US get here? How did identity politics suddenly come to be the most important thing, bringing the world order to its knees?
I don’t actually think it’s far left though. And they are certainly much less effective than other socially liberal parties in Europe. In the UK it was our right wing party that legalised gay marriage, for example. Europe is a lot more woke than the US (and a good thing too)
US is still pretty far-right on social policy by the standards of most of Europe. This is an average, there’s lot of outliers such as even the proper left in France being weird about Muslim dress.
Since when is defending freedom of speech a right wing issue?
It will soon stop being considered that, when Trump and Musk keep widening their censorship apparatus.
College campuses are already a 1A-free zone with the intention to deport "anti-Semitic" students
The US is very liberal, but liberal doesn't mean left.
Left to me means workers movements, and there's very little of that in the US.
Identity politics is on the right in Israel. In a general sense I think it might not belong on the same spectrum as redistributive policies or militarism.
Biden was the strongest supporter of workers unions we have ever had, and the left in the US reviled Biden. Including the unions, largely.
It's time to stop thinking in materialist terms when analyzing US politics, that has completely flown the coop. It's all culture war.
>The US is very liberal, but liberal doesn't mean left.
At no point was "liberal" mentioned in this comment chain prior to your comment.
>Left to me means workers movements, and there's very little of that in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#Social_prog...
[flagged]
Duping people, not actually trying to help them.
The current new guard GOP are currently demonizing and firing federal workers who have protections under the law. Their actions are not pro worker.
Conveniently, these certain social issues do not threaten elite interests like "traditional" leftism would.
The biggest win the Republicans and billionaire class ever had was convincing the American public that left == liberal. It's not. Blue hair, trans flag, black lives matter, pro-palestine, etcetera; these are socially liberal stances. "Left" doesn't mean any of these things for the rest of the world in a conventional sense. Left means unions, workers rights, socialism or sydicalism; generally, power to the workers/99%/people rather than the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
Americans should continue to conflate socially liberal and economically left-wing at their own peril.
It's worth noting that labor unions have mobilized all over the globe in solidarity with Palestine. Given that the main bone of contention in this country is continued material and financial support to a military campaign it feels odd to lump in with "social liberalism".
>Left means unions, workers rights, socialism or sydicalism; generally, power to the workers/99%/people rather than the capatilists/monarchists/regime.
Everyone claims they're the true voice of the 99%. Trump, despite being a billionaire, claims he's defending Americans workers by imposing tariffs and deporting undocumented immigrants. More broadly the right claims that they're fighting against the "elites" in the media/academia/corporations/"deep state".
Trump and Musk claiming they fight against "the elite" is one of the major jokes the rest of the world is laughing at.
It was surreal watching Trump, the man who has made his very name into a corporate product, campaign against Hillary Clinton with claims that she's too influenced by corporations. And, somehow, our politics managed to get even stupider since then.
Well yeah, plenty of developed countries are xenophobic and bigoted in terms of same sex marriage still. I’m curious what “social issue” you are imagining that is represented by the american left but not the european left otherwise.
The US left wing is far more supportive of trans rights, particularly youth gender affirming care, than its counterparts in Europe. For example, I do not think you'd see a Democrat outside of a swing district publicly say, "It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," as Keir Starmer has. Also, while on the campaign trail he said he wouldn't scrap the proposed ban on teaching young people in England about transgender identity in school, saying, "I'm not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender," language not too dissimilar from the Trump administration's.
> For example, I do not think you'd see a Democrat outside of a swing district publicly say, "It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," as Keir Starmer has.
Maybe a year or two ago…the political landscape has shifted drastically in recent years and months.
California governor Gavin Newsom has a new podcast, and recently told Charlie Kirk (yes, he invited Kirk to pander to the young white male voters) something along the lines of “trans people shouldn’t play sports”.
That's not what Gavin Newsom said. What he actually told Charlie Kirk is that it isn't fair for women to have to compete against biological males. You can disagree with him but don't misrepresent his position.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-this-is-gavin-newsom-268...
Starmer is a centrist and Labour have been very weak against a trans panic being whipped up by right wing media.
Yes, that's my point. And there are many Labor MPs that are to the right of Starmer on this issue. The party that's closest to the Democrats (and arguably slightly more left on the issue though not by much) are the Lib Dems, and they got, what, 12% of the vote?
Also, do you not think American right wing media is not capable of whipping up panics? This feels like special pleading.
Outside of trans rights though, it’s hard to see what issues the us left is to the left of Europe on. What’s more, we actually have left wing parties in power and using govt machinery to advance what would now be called ‘woke’ in the us.
Which? Be clear, because the only ones I hear you dogwhistling here are Trans folks rights or Black folks rights if you are vaguely referencing "social issues" and generally America's historical context there is Pretty Dang Bad.
What’s the dogwhistle?
There is nothing dogwhistleable here, US leftist race policy is a huge outlier in the Western world and I would hesitate to call it "liberal". Once someone groups people into racial groups and treats them like interchangeable Lego bricks by color, they have left any pretense of liberalism, which by necessity considers an individual to be the smallest and most vulnerable minority of them all.
[flagged]
This is the stupidest thing I have read on HN today.
With regards from a hardcore european leftist
[flagged]
[flagged]
I haven’t met a left or right wing European who has more than the slightest clue what America’s abortion laws actually are.
[flagged]
That’s been shared a lot on social media but those posts tend to leave out the context that this was only in technical language around IVF, not a broad change, and that it was intended to resolve confusion around what “mother” means in the context of what goes on a birth certificate in the case where a same-sex couple means the child has two mothers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2025/02/28/wis...
Thanks for clearing that up, it really changes the story for me. This actually came up as only 4% reported by the left in Ground News' weekly Blindspot Report [1][2]. It only lists one left-leaning source, also from USA Today [3], but not the one you linked, one critical of the measure. I guess Ground News really didn't help here in guarding against bias. That's pretty disappointing.
[1] https://ground.news/newsletters/blindspot-report/Feb-25-2025 [2] https://ground.news/article/ec380800-9bf0-4cb4-a894-3fe0c001... [3] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/02/28/i...
I get being against this sort of thing, but it’s wild to me how people are SO against something so inconsequential (official language on government forms or whatever) that they’re willing to instead support a party that’s actively pushing us into authoritarianism.
Like sure some inclusive language is silly, but it’s a lot better than losing our national parks, destroying our social safety nets, celebrating cruelty to immigrants, and ripping the constitution to shreds in the process.
Language, and attempts to assert control over its use and definitions, is not at all inconsequential
Whether a birth certificate for a same-sex couple in the IVF case mentions "mother" or the less ambiguous "inseminated person" is indeed fully inconsequential for the vast majority of the American public.
Doesn't stop populists from wipping up outrage.
Changes in official government paperwork to be more inclusive are very much not "control of language and attempts to assert control over its use and definitions".
Calm down with the rhetorical fallacies...
I mean, you could describe the Trump administration's executive order requiring government agencies to stop using Gulf of Mexico and instead use Gulf of America as simply "changes in government paperwork." But I think it's obviously also an attempt to change the language.
It's not just some govt. form. It's literally about using it as a reason to ban the world's largest news agency from govt. press briefings.
I wouldn't classify it as "changes in government paperwork" since the EO defined the official name for a geographical feature, very different from some law changing the usage of a term in a government's form. Quite a different level and degree, if that's out of consideration everything can be reduced to some more general form to be played as equivalent.
My feeling is that people aren't much against something inconsequential per se, instead they are against something that's out of their status quo and that question some underlying values they haven't ever questioned themselves (for example: genders).
Instead of being curious why exactly some people are proposing something that challenges their worldview they instead immediately allow their fear to take over, and reject the change.
It's the same pattern that non-accepting parents of gay children tend to go through when their kid comes out of the closet; in that case a lot of them have a change of heart into acceptance because they love the person, over time they are able to overcome the fear and understand a new worldview.
Not so much for the masses with flames being fanned by politicians wanting to capitalise on that fear, they are kept in fear, they are told to reject any attempt to educate them, the messaging calls it "evil" or "not from God" or "only for betas", adapted to the audience's most chauvinistic identity (religion, machoism, etc.).
Since it's easy to manipulate those into hating whatever is the bad-word-du-jour then those same politicians can attach any policy with "combating bad-word-du-jour" and a lot of the believers won't question it much.
It's disheartening because even though I'm quite progressive and leftist (in the European sense), I still believe that conservatism is necessary to balance out the discussion, unfortunately it's also an ideology intrinsically bound to the fear of change, a feeling very easy to be co-opted by power-hungry people.
It's an ideology that rejects rationality and almost completely embraces emotion (fear), which is rather ironic since its most fervent followers want to believe they are the most reasonable and logical ones.
> the recent proposal to change the word "mother" to "inseminated person" in Wisconsin state law
Life gets easier once one realizes that talking points like this are at best missing all important context, if not outright deceptive. Other examples would be the "They spent $X studying OUTRAGEOUS_THING"
The exhausting thing is doing to required research to point out to people that the outrage pornography sound bite they're screaming about is, of course, completely fake and designed to enrage them.
Then they thank you for the information and go on to completely believe the next one with no pattern recognition whatsoever.
That's a proposal. Some of the proposals are intentional provocations to make the news in other states.
Indeed. Social democracy is a requisite for stability. It’s surprising it lasted this long. I guess the New Deal might have been instrumental in postponing collapse.
People forget how close we got last time with The Business Plot. Now the Business Plot actually went off.
People forget, how oligarchies are actually not desirable for the oligarchs. Because there is no law and no stability. The zhar/king has a bad day and the whole crowd around you shifts in some economic landslide. Oligarchs in Russia came and went, and they took their money to europe/swiss/uk/us - because you can not thrust a oligarchy, when you are today in favor of the golden god king.
Such moves towards such systems, are usually desperate jumps of those whose empires are under threat of being broken up anyway.
The countries that have had the most successful but empathetic policies have reversed course on the key issue of immigration: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigrat.... MAGA would be thrilled to achieve the reversal of immigration that's happening in Denmark, for example.
The kind of immigration that Europe had to deal with is very different from that of the US.
If you want to copy Denmark, I'm guessing you also want their universal healthcare.
Assuming we got Danes to run it, yes, I’d want their universal healthcare system too.
Is it that different? Lots of low skilled people who are generalized to be a threat to the nation.
> That’s the most frustrating part. What America calls leftists is considered pretty centrist everywhere else.
The most frustrating part is that Trump is sabotaging the US by enacting the pseudo-anti war policies that the republican party has been vilifying for decades.
It's the ironic part.
Trump is the result of anti-system vote by people who were ignored for decades by both parties.
Trump obviously won't solve their problems. Inequality won't decrease. Healthcare won't become more accessible. Workers' rights won't be fixed. Homes won't get more affordable. Inflation won't drop.
So - even when Trump disgraces himself completely - these disappointed voters will just vote for another anti-system con-man.
Trump's core voters desperately need Sanders to win. But they will vote Trumps and get fucked over time and time again.
This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the system so hard they destroy it.
> This is how democracy dies. People distrusting the system so hard they destroy it.
Funny. Reminds me of the last time I visited Brazil. In the last day I heard someone justifying voting for Bolsonaro by saying "things are so bad that I just want someone who will destroy everything".
It's weird, they think things can't get any worse. In my country, union got us 7% raise in 3 years, thats 4% if you discount union membership cost and people talk about leaving union "because it's not worth it".
Without union we get nothing and people before us had to fight to get us these rights and now some people want to throw it away because they didn't get big enough raise.
Bolsonaro is a symptom of the same disease as Trump. At least he's ineligible until 2030. Who would have thought that Brazil would have stronger democratic institutions?
The fact that democracy has in it the ability to bring to power the systems and people that can destroy it is what's most frustrating about it.
There are safety features built-in in more recent democracies. USA is just a very early implementation and hasn't been keeping up with the patches.
2-party system is bad. Regional representation instead of population representation is bad. Allowing gerrymandering is bad. Letting companies/oligarchs to contribute to election campaigns is VERY bad.
All of this ends with a system that cannot reform itself. It's a common failure mode in early democracies. There are known workarounds.
Safety features work only if you do not ignore them and turns out that semi-authoritarian ruling parties can do that.
Can you point me towards these ‘workarounds’ so I can learn more? TY.
Forbid Gerrymandering.
E.g. Republican Schwarzenegger has been advocating against gerrymandering for a long time.
Force all states to cast election votes to be proportional to citizens' votes (some states do but others do not).
I realize this is just my own idea, but I think the Constitution forbids gerrymandering, by demanding a "republican form of government" in the states. The question is how this opinion would stand up to being tested by the current Supreme Court.
First-past-the-post voting systems are extra dangerous. I.e. where all the votes of a district go to the winner of the district.
If instead all votes go proportionally according to what people voted, you get less extreme policies and encourage parties to build coalitions. Nobody is happy, but fewer people are extremely unhappy.
You can find plenty of "workarounds" in any Wal-Mart or pawn shop in the US. You can even buy a "workaround" from someone directly and avoid a background check.
Two people tried to use their "workaround" prior to the election and failed.
[flagged]
I don't buy the "ignored" part.
It's not like in authoritarian countries where their votes just go down to trash. It's not like they cannot voice their opinion or organize demonstrations. I agree there is a sentiment of "I'm ignored", but at any point in time it's up to them to not being ignored in democratic society.
Do you think it's realistic to expect a new party to win elections in USA in the next 20 years?
Bernie Sanders would not fix the American Problem, because he too would be unable to do anything. It's a mistake to think that there was one recent event decided on the margins that somehow led to collapse.
The American Problem is not one of systems or policies. The American Problem is about people, what they do to each other, and that you allow that to happen. The constitutional arguments they have are Red Herrings. What matters is what people do, and what they want to be allowed to do by their arguments.
> Trump is the result of anti-system vote by people who were ignored for decades by both parties.
Nah, they were not ignored by both parties. It is votes by people who were listened to by the republican party again and again and again.
Trump voters will never vote for somebody like Sanders, and I think that fundamentally misunderstands Trump voters and what they want.
This is just a baffling attitude. Sanders is the only name that regularly gets respect from every corner of the political spectrum. His most vociferous critics by a long shot are centrist democratic loyalists.
Look, all I have is polling data from multiple national presidential elections to back me up.
I know many Trump supporters but not a single one of them respects or like Sanders, and all the polling data I can find points out that this is the general trend.
Any Sanders path to victory involved massive amounts of youth turnout that would have otherwise stayed home, and there's basically zero Republican leaning voters that would switch to Bernie. And the swing vote swings massively to Trump when Sanders goes against Trump.
I wonder what those swing votes would be today, now that people start to realize how quickly and efficiently the USA is being destroyed from the inside, right now.
Sanders means well in the things he does, but he's unfortunately very very .. how do I put this, stupid in his ideas.
Even his own party never votes for his stuff because his ideas are always terrible. They are always emotional, but he never thinks them through. I don't think he's able to think them through.
I'll give you an example from a different person: There's someone on Twitter who wants a 0.1% tax on stock transactions, and then he calculates that this little change will fund everything we could possibly want. He utterly ignores that if you put this tax people will change their behavior! There will be fewer transactions, and this tax will fund nothing at all.
Sanders is the same way: He makes an idea, and completely ignores how people will respond to it.
Sanders has a 0% chance of winning.
Is there much overlap in Trump and Sanders policy views?
I wouldn't expect voters for either candidate to agree with much from the other candidate, but maybe I don't know their platforms well enough to see the similarities.
The issue is that you think people are voting for policies. I don’t think that’s true anymore, and maybe it never was true.
People are definitely voting for policies. There was a study that found trump spent a higher percent of time talking about policies than Hillary. The PBS documentary on 2016 had an anecdote than in 2016 the trump rally crowd would chant things that became trump policies.
Even more reason one wouldn't expect voters to jump candidates or parties.
Given the GP comment I assumed we weren't talking about that scenario where people are only a candidate or party voter.
I didn’t say that they’re voting for a candidate and would never change their mind either.
What are they voting for if not policy views, a particular candidate, or a particular party?
Trump doesn't "have policy views". Trump _is_ the policy and the view.
Trump surely has policy views. Maybe they aren't consistent, and he often speaks contradictory to whatever his views are, but you're underestimating him if you believe his has no views. If you consider him a threat, underestimating him sounds dangerous
> Trump _is_ the policy and the view.
That may be true for voters, I know quite a few Trump voters that only care to vote for him and couldn't explain any coherent policy reason for preferring him. That has no bearing on Trump's own policies or views though.
> I know quite a few Trump voters that only care to vote for him and couldn't explain any coherent policy reason for preferring him
Perhaps the reasons can't be mentioned in polite company.
I assume you mean they're racist. Yes I do know one openly racist person who happened to vite for Trump. I don't think he voted for Trump for that reason though, he's just been a republican voter for decades if I'm not mistaken.
I distinctly remember the lead up to the 2016 election. I remember having one conversation with a friend who is relatively affluent. Not independently wealthy but a top 1% earner. I had been watching Bernie gain steam and I brought this up in the context of how unhappy with the status quo people seemed to be.
This immediately got dismissed. "Everything is fine". It is a mistake to paint all Trump voters as just being proto-fascists (which the majority are). Many ended up there because they desperately wanted change and establishment candidates were just offering more of the same. Hilary absolutely was a "more of the same" candidate. And the entire GOP primary field (21 at one point) were "more of the same". That's why Trump won the primary. That, combined with Hilary's massive negatives and her generally being a terrible candidate, were why Trump won in the first place.
2020 was an anomaly in many ways. We had Covid lockdowns and were coming off 4 years of Trump chaos. Because of the lockdown, voting was made substantially easier with early voting and mail-in ballots. The more people vote, the more Democrats win. It's why voter suppression is a key part of the Republican platform (make no mistake, "voter ID" is simply voter suppression). Were it not for the pandemic, I very much suspect Trump would've won re-election. Biden was a terrible candidate and never should've been the nominee. Clyburn basically handed him the nomination (in South Carolina) and Warren stayed in long enough to split Bernie's vote, the second time the DNC had actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign.
Remember in 2020, Bernie had Joe Rogan's endorsement.
The Democrats are really just Republican Lite now. Kamala's immigration plan was Trump's 2020 immigration plan. Kamala abandoned opposition to the death penalty from the party platform and called for the most "lethal" military. She courted never Trumpers like Liz Cheney. Like seriously, who was that for? She refused to separate herself from Biden on any issue despite his historic unpopularity. And of course, she refused to deviate from the deeply unpopular position on Israel-Gaza. In short, she offered the voters absolutely nothing.
In this election, progressive voter initiatives outperformed the Democratic party by a massive margin. For example, minimum wage increases passed in Missouri, a state Trump won by 22. Trump won Florida by 14 yet recreational cannabis and abortion protection got 55-59% of the vote (unfortunately, you need 60% to pass in Florida).
The Democratic Party exists to actively sabotage any progressive momentum. We didn't get a convention primary after Biden withdrew because the DNC was scared a progressive candidate would win. They stuck us with Kamala to avoid that.
My point here is that Trump doesn't have and has never had a majority. He only won each time because there was effectively zero opposition. A chunk of Trump's base are simply people desperate for change. At least Trump lied to them and gave them something to vote for. Democrats wouldn't even lie to them and tell them they were going to fix housing and egg prices and give them healthcare.
Louder, for the people in the back.
This is a solid summary of what happened during the political shifting of the last (almost) ten years.
Unfortunate that this comment is so deep in the thread here.
Not disagreeing with your points (maybe taking issue with a few), but pretty sure no True Progressive would have won either.
> At least Trump lied to them
This is the real bisector. If one party gets to use magic and capture the stupid vote, what's the other party supposed to do? Lie more? Lie less? As long as magic appeals to stupid people, we're screwed.
The real underlying problem is the collapse of the consensus of the elites, projected through corporate media. Murdoch saw a financial opportunity to break from this model, and social media companies followed with this as their only business model. Murdoch and Zuckerberg make money spreading magic which appeals to stupid people who vote in deranged morons. There is no effective feedback mechanism because not enough voters have the mental skills to evaluate the consequences of their actions. Or perhaps they just like seeing chaos and destruction. Rinse repeat.
I know what they want and I know what they need. The difference is precisely the problem.
The idea that anyone can know without a doubt what someone else needs is part of the problem.
People need to be treated as adults before they can be expected to act like adults. There's always the risk that goes wrong, it has in the past, but we're doomed if we believe the only way forward is a small group of elites forcing change on us because they "know best".
Political science has decades of research that consistently shows that it’s entirely correct to think that most voters have no clue about anything, including what would be best for them.
Reasoned, informed votes aren’t a major factor in elections.
[edit] see if your library has a copy of Democracy for Realists and also dig into older major works they cite, if you’re interested in more on this. For a quick gut-check, look up the proportion of US voters that understand how marginal income tax rates work, then reflect on the fact that this is something very simple that directly affects them in ways they must confront at least once per year, and despair at how bad similar measures must look for practically everything else and that if they don’t understand the basics of how things work, they can’t even begin to figure out “what’s best” for them or for anyone else.
I will see if I can find that book, thanks for the recommendation.
I'm not sure how we could untangle the issue of today's uneducated populace with our education system itself. If people don't understand marginal tac rates, for example, and most people go to public school because the government makes it pretty difficult to choose anything else, is it not the fault of public education for either not teaching it or teaching it poorly?
More importantly in my opinion, if people don't care to understand it that's fine - they can make that choice. If the system still works and no one complains, great. If it becomes a problem we can either better educate people on how it works or move to a more simply form of taxation that is easier for people to understand.
I’m not sure how much understanding the issues is a factor in democracy functioning well. I think it has more to do with widespread belief in democratic and rule-of-law identity, such that voters will reliably punish those who violate those tenets, and structures set up to resist the kind of rot that targets inherent weaknesses in democracy, especially to prevent capture of media and lobbying by rich minority interests. These reduce the effects of directed exploitation of voter ignorance, and block democratic attacks on democracy itself.
Both of those factors are, to use the scientific term, completely fucked in the US, which is why we’re where we are now. We’re not here because people think that we spend 20% of our budget on foreign aid, but rather, people think that because of concentration and capture of media ownership, and intense lobbying. The ignorance would be there either way, but the direction and form of it is carefully cultivated, and allowing that cultivation is the problem.
The generation of hard data demonstrating that voters (more or less) don’t know jack-shit about anything goes back to IIRC the 1950s, and the best answer Poli Sci has for why this results in a functioning system at all is that voter behavior is fairly erratic (much of it amounts to “do I perceive that things are bad, even that have nothing to do with the government or with me? Then throw the bums out!”) and (this was once accepted but is now controversial) that voter ignorance kinda balances out by virtue of being chaotic. If that ignorance becomes directed, however, both of these things are weaponizable or breakable.
Many of the founders of the US wrote about the importance of an educated populace and feared that an uneducated voting public would ruin the system.
What you describe are both results of an uneducated voting public in my opinion. At least as I see it, those are two important effects with the root cause being a lack of education and critical thinking.
If people were better educated on how our systems work and issues that impact them directly, and willing to think critically and listen to, or engage in, reasoned debates we wouldn't have to worry about what shit they may hear or see in the media, or from politicians, lobbyists, etc.
The solution at the time largely involved not letting groups unlikely to be educated… vote at all.
I’d definitely be interested in evidence that there are democracies with voters who are significantly better at understanding the function of their government, the breakdown of the budget, how basic functions of it work, et c, than in the US before, say, 1975.
I'm not totally sure whether you meant the 1975 point as a comparison of democracies today versus 1975 US, or democracies from 1975 compared to the US.
This is anecdotal since I don't have evidence handy, but I've been impressed with Swiss voters that I've met and they have all spoken highly of both their Democratic model and their voters. I don't know all the intricacies of it, but my understanding is that their system pushes any meaningful change to a vote. Its slower and requires more voter engagement, but at least from my experience that has succeeded in building a better informed public.
It was the other way around. People who are being treated like adults are acting like scared children.
We should never expect people treated as children to act as anything more.
Acting like an adult requires practice and learning lessons when you mess up. Treating those you may disagree with, or don't trust, as children is a self fulfilling prophecy and strips them of the dignity of having the chance to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences.
Could you please implement Sander's socialist paradise in Vermont first? I'd really like to see how it works out before you try and subject the rest of us to your ideas. thanks!
Visit EU.
Er no. There is a huge extremist leftist attitude that pervades the country. And all these leftists think they are centrists.
Leftist now refers to that. The leftist of like over a decade ago. That leftist is now more centrist.
Do you have any specific examples?
[flagged]
The US is so far right, that being against segregation, is now considered a far left 'woke' idea.
[flagged]
I’m unsure why this is being downvoted when it states only the truth.
[flagged]
It was literally in an official gov directive this week, to remove any requirements from government contractors that they not be segregated. so now a government contractors can be segregated if they desire.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by segregate?
This is such a wild con, especially looking at the whole thing from Europe. The Us has no significant political left, how on earth are they "behind everything" if they can't even manifest some influence within the Democratic party?
If the left was strong in the US there would have been a contest between Hillary Clinton and an actual left wing contender like Bernie Sanders. Even people like AOC would make a decent centrist candidate in Europe.
It’s just a boogeyman so we can swing this country into full blown fascism. Hitler did the same crap. It’s always somebody else’s fault, usually your friends and neighbors.
Nonsense, you have no idea how many conservatives are still mad the “leftists” forced the baker to make a custom cake endorsing gay marriage against his beliefs. (Not sell an off the shelf one, he was okay with that, a customized cake.)
That’s the kind of persecution they are talking, and angry, about. If that incident had not happened, Trump may never have been elected.
They also didn’t like how Harris, a center right politician by all accounts, laughed “too much”.
They were upset about a tan suit. I don't think it's about any specific little incident.
And fancy mustard.
I think this is precisely it. The culture war stuff may sometimes get a veneer of economic interests, but those are subservient to culture war.
[flagged]
Left/right is not nearly as useful a lens here as is authoritarian/democratic.
The real key to avoiding mass starvations is giving people economic freedom to grow their own food or at a minimum trade for it, as well as democratic means to remove rulers that will starve mass numbers of people.
> Eh, the right still has a lot of work to do if they want to catch up with the economic damage (and the sheer body count) perpetrated by leftists over the last century.
I'm curious to see this quantified. Mao was certainly terrible, but so was Hitler of course and so were the various famines imposed by British rule.
The numbers are out there, but they won't have any impact on this conversation. They never do.
How could they if you don’t provide references to them?
It's well-accepted that Stalin's various purges and famines killed several times more civilians than Hitler managed to, for instance.
Here in the US, I'm personally more concerned about a replay of Pol Pot's regime. He took Hitler's warped notions of anti-intellectualism ("Jewish physics") to a whole new level ("Kill anybody wearing glasses.")
The fact that he did so under the standard of leftism doesn't really seem that meaningful or relevant, because if/when it happens here, it will evidently be perpetrated by the extreme right. A pox on both their houses.
> Stalin's various purges and famines killed several times more civilians than Hitler managed to, for instance.
Oh look one of you. Hitler didn't get the chance to execute Generalplan Ost.
I completely distrust and generally regard leftists with contempt due to my personal interactions with them alone. I regard them as societal cancer and would prefer any other group to be in charge over them. No McCarthyist propaganda needed. I'll take a fascist's boot on my neck any day over a lefty who pretends to do it for my own good.
wow you're full of hate
99% of leftists are completely normal people.
99% of leftist and roughly 2.76% rightists :)
the saddest part about a comment you are commenting on is that their mind has been so polluted that they only see the world through the views of two arbitrary political parties (who shift their own views every couple of decades, hard rightist from few decades ago is basically same-ish person as far-leftist today). all empires fall and USA is slowly getting there (now going “little” faster) because of thinking like this in part.
Regardless of how McCarthyism is antagonized under post Cold War era, it is not at all clear to me that such crackdowns wouldn't have been essential in ensuring the culture war is not lost to the Soviet Union.
Yeah?
How about you check out the rest of the western world, where each single democracy had their own pickings with communist tendecies. And most of them handled that in the common sense way of giving workers basic protections and ensuring their share of wealth so they don't feel the need to go to the communists.
Worked pretty well for most European countries.
Although, once communism was gone, the ideology of neolibral economic thinking took over and thus all benefits to workers were seen as unnecessary expenses. Leading to the current rise in nationalism and fascism nearly everywhere.
It is pretty simple: If you want all people to carry a system, all people need to feel like they profit from its existence. Once the mask slips and people realize they aren't profiting, they will be unwilling to hold up their side of the social contract. This is what is happening right now.
> This is what is happening right now.
Yup, and the response to from the owner class is not to uphold the social contract, but to renegotiate it.
"the whole structure of society will be up for debate and reconfiguration." - Sam Altman
> Worked pretty well for most European countries.
Has it though? It appears most of Europe is by and large a failed state collapsing under such communist-adjacent policies plus unbounded immigration. I would not want to be Europe today, so yeah, to the extent McCarthyism has been a protection against that, kudos.
... have you ever been to Europe? A failed state - keep drinking that Fox News koolaid.
Yes, two of my siblings are European citizens. It's staggering how much richer US feels. Many Europeans are fed daily propaganda and thus are in denial/ideological hatred. I implore Europeans especially the ones in technology to skip over anti-capitalist and anti-American propaganda widespread in Europe (e.g. you'll hear shootings every day; you'll be BK and die on the street if you get cancer) and seriously explore opportunities in the US. They can be multiple times wealthier, not just some measly percentages.
This is the classic american take, look at how much more money you could have.
To most europeans there are more important things than money, especially those working in tech who likely earn enough to have a great quality of life. Also lots of them have been to the US and made their own minds up.
That money apparently is not making Americans happier:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
When you measure Socialist ideals and call it "happiness" you get paradoxical results.
Ignore the US; keep believing that Sweden is happier than Spain :)
They should really call it something like "World ESG Index."
But you only get two weeks of annual leave a year on average to enjoy that extra money. Seems a shame.
You can take a few years off with one year of FANG comp but if denial feels good I am not going to ruin the moment.
Yes most of the population does not enjoy that benefit. I understand you only care for yourself, so yes please enjoy the current system that benefits you. Maybe we can a country just for you and send you there.
I think the meta is studying history, and wondering if any slide toward facism has ever been successfully stopped in its tracks without being beaten down in wars.
The two sort-of examples in Western history I can think of are Spain after Franco, and the UK in the 1930s. In Spain a monarch's left-shift was perhaps the deciding and surprising variable, and in the UK it was a powerful civil rights movement.
The US has neither, so I don't know what to expect. The two-party system also makes it very hard to bootstrap meaningful change, since both parties tend to try and chase the Overton window, but only one is really pushing to move it right now.
In Spain one of the deciding factors was the prime canditate for succeeding Franco as a dictator being blown up by Basque terrorists. Also, you should consider the Carnation Revolution in Portugal as another example.
Thanks -- I really don't know much about the latter
The regime collapsed when the Portuguese colonial war in Africa consumed up to 40 percent of the national budget, and a new generation of university-educated military officials began spreading through the armed forces.
Portugal endured a dictatorial regime for almost 42 years, one of the longest in modern Europe, which was tolerated by NATO due to its anti-communist stance. [1],[2]
Interestingly enough, Russia is currently spending more than 40% of its budget on the war. [3]
A far more effective strategy to force them out of Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation. Instead, the West tolerated hundreds of businesses continuing to operate in Russia.[4]
The most likely explanation for agent Krasnov’s, (currently occupying the White House), sense of urgency to halt the war in Ukraine, and use it as a pretext to restart economic ties with Russia is the impending collapse of the Russian economy.[5]
If the USA were to leverage its real and soft power by issuing executive orders that refuse to allow any company to do business with Russia. And by threatening sanctions on India and China for enabling the Russian economy, it would force India and China to choose between access to the US market and economic prosperity, or support for Putin. The war would cease, employing the same tactics Reagan used to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
Instead, the US administration chose to betray the entire West, by yielding to Russian demands.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salaz...
[3] https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/1...
[4] https://leave-russia.org/
[5] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/01/russias-economic-dilemm...
Re: economic sanctions against Russia. In 2019 Russia main exports went to EU and China and Belarus, while main import a were from US EU and China [0]. It will be crucial for EU to keep their sanctions or maybe even tighten them. Even if US stops their sanctions Russia will mostly buy technology from the US (for drilling). This will not solve Russia’s problem re:lower revenues.
I am very curious if EU is smart enough to keep and even tighten their sanctions. After all is European security that is threatened by Russia.
[0]
[https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/RUS/Yea...
>A far more effective strategy to force them out of Ukraine, would be genuine economic starvation.
It doesn't seems like that. The West was pretty intolerant to business connections with Russia, and if instead of 80% cut there was 100% cut - it doesn't change the overall picture very much.
>by threatening sanctions on India and China
If We look at the trade balance of Western countries and China - the West isn't close to the position to do that.
>use it as a pretext to restart economic ties with Russia is the impending collapse of the Russian economy >yielding to Russian demands.
That's a blatant conspiracy theory. It seems like the main obstacle in the Trump's "peace deal" is that Putin is thinking that he is winning this war and that the Russian economy has way more time than the Ukrainian army will be able to conscript new soldiers.
>employing the same tactics Reagan used to bankrupt the Soviet Union
Soviet Union collapsed because of it's own complete left economy, because oil prices were several times lower than now (even adjusted for inflation) and because Gorbachev thought that it is better for him to advertise pizza, then to be the Supreme Ruler of those piece of sh.t of a country.
But here is the problem...The West is still sending, and this incredible after 3 years of the Ukraine war, more than 200 to 300 billion a year to Russia! The Russia military budget is 100 Billion! Their GDP is smaller than Italy.
There is no political will. Sadly, and on this Trump is correct, the pathetic EU sent as much money to Ukraine as the amount of money they sent to Russia in oil purchases:
https://www.euronews.com/video/2025/03/05/has-europe-spent-m...
Three years of war and no real strategy of economic starvation of Russia....
wasn’t the Carnation Revolution a direct result of the war in Angola?
Yes. A colonial war in three countries simultaneously, 2,000 miles from the nation.
Yet it still took 13 years, combined with the regime’s economic collapse and a shift in the educational background of the Armed Forces hierarchy to spark the revolution.
The US most likely will be in a civil war in eight to six months.... A cut in social security benefits will do it...
OMG such a bold assertion with no backing data…
Not at all, the reason the current administration is acting so cruelly is to bring people to despair. And desperate people do desperate things. A violent action will be used as excuse to deploy US armed forces against US citizens.
"Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s reelected" - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-hell-us...
Democrats will dress in pink...
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1246134779/the-reality-behind...
"In the near future, the U.S. president has given himself a third term. He's disbanded the FBI."
"Trump Muses About a Third Term, Over and Over Again" - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-third-t...
Like Putin did.
Spain's first astronaut!
Poland is still in the midst of a constitutional crisis caused by the Law and Justice party's attempts to subvert the country's constitutional court. It's only with the formation of Donald Tusk's government in 2023 that Poland has come back from the brink.
Pinochet is an example, albeit not a particularly hopeful one.
Polen corrected course slightly in resent time.
>I always thought that the American Empire would be dismantled when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
Most leftist political parties in Scandinavia and the Baltics manages to be be both pro-Palestine, pro-NATO, and pro-Ukraine. They don't seen any contradiction because there aren't any.
Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist neo-Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn down before you can get free healthcare and free college?
I find it mostly with younger people steeped in ideology and dogmatism, that reparations need to be made for a long history of imperialism.
3rd wolrdism also exists in Europe. I'm pretty sure it's far more popular.
The reason why they feel overrepresented in the US is simply because a real, progressive leftist political project is essentially impossible, so the most extreme of the extremes are proportional more audible.
> Why do some American leftists follow this 3rd worldist neo-Maoist thinking that Western civilization needs to burn down before you can get free healthcare and free college?
Let's be fair, you said "some". We also have some of those in Europe.
But to answer, with a guess: perhaps the difference is that in European countries there are way more political parties. But I'm not an expert on American politics so feel free to say this is BS.
Probably because 2/3 of the population can't be reached. They either want to do whatever they can to be anti-left, even if it hurts themselves, or they don't care at all. So voting harder isn't going to work. All while education is being gutted. I honestly don't know what other options are left. Maybe turning states into their own countries and let them raw dog the world without any help from the federal govt. Idk, it's bleak.
It's quite frustrating, but it's clear propaganda spread. There's a complete vacuum of media for leftists in the US, and a tiny amount of money goes a long ways to cementing desired propaganda. Seeing the entire left in the US turn on Ukraine calling them Nazis, when in fact they were occupied by Nazis, with all the terrors that entails, and were planned to have half their population killed and the other half enslaved to Nazis, well, it's red pilling. The left in the US is so weak and leaderless that it is easily co-opted to any sort of end.
What leftists are you talking about? These comments seem incredibly out of touch. Are we going to pretend the left elected Trump and these policies?
It’s being dismantled by an immigrant from South Africa with a dude who’s grandparents immigrated about 100 years ago from Germany who has an immigrant wife.
> when it elected a leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world
You are saying this as a hypothetical that never happened, right?
That's what the "would be" indicates directly in front of the part you quoted. And in reference to your comment below, I am definitely not referencing Obama, that doesn't even make sense because he did not dismantle American Empire in his two terms, in addition to not really being a leftist at all.
English is ambiguous. Your statement can be interpreted as "I thought the guy we elected (a specific individual to whom I refer coyly, not by name) would destroy everything" or "I thought it would take electing a certain type of person to destroy everything".
Probably some of the leftist dictators of South America would qualify. Chavez, Morales et. al.
Yes, but not in the US, as OP was saying.
I assume he was trying to allude to Obama, which at least in the recent decades came the closest to that in terms of media image, but the claim that there has been an anti-imperialist president of the US (on any relevant timescale) doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
> leftist steeped in anti-imperialist ideology who wanted to better the world.
This is precisely how half of the US media characterized Barack Obama, who pioneered an even more impersonal style of American imperialism with drone warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
Obama is responsible for advancing the power of the presidency pushing further the limits with executive orders to make law. When met with the uselessness and obstructionism of Congress, both parties elected officials choose authoritarianism. When faced with disagreement, both party's voters advocate for authoritarianism. If the opposition doesn't agree, we'll use the government to force them.
It is, in my own opinion, a common fallacy to attribute the outcome as a direct consequence of the associated ideology, when more often than not the ideology is at best a post-hoc rationalization. Material decisions and their natural consequences are far more consistently impactful than any abstract justification for them.
Oft quoted on HN in these contexts: "The purpose of a system is what it does." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
The system is eroded by the people who were brought into the position of being capable to destroy the system: by the system!. In so far: "The purpose of a system is what it does" (Stafford Beer). This should motivate us to ask what properties of the system lead to this and how we might change it.
To me it seems to be a bit like what the Böckenförde-Diktum points to, which is: "The liberal secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself."
Basically the modern capitalist secularized society is so void of deep human values and only emphasizing legality and profitability that it brings out a certain kind of elite. An elite which is decoupled from all real human connection and value leading to a thinking like this: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/elon-musk-rogan-...
Well and now we have to cope with this. But until we understand that these elites are no accident but logical results of the system we foster, nothing will really change. Or better: until we accept that the reductionist approach to human society and value that this system is based on is flawed and act accordingly everything we do is basically just flex-taping it and waiting for the next escalation.
I don't see this driven so much by ideology as much as musks drug fueled conversations with putin.
I read recently that Patrimonialism is a good way of describing the current regime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrimonialism
Horseshoe theory addresses this.
I need to give a name to my theory which posits that horseshoe theory is a bullshit right-wing talking point, no different from the classic villain trope "We are not so different, you and I", where one side admits to being awful but uses false analogies to try and paint the other with the same brush, and the other rejects both the comparison and the conclusion.
The underlying goal of horseshoe theory is not to create a meaningful comparison between two positions, but an underhanded attempt to demoralise those on the left, and to swing undecided centrists by convincing them that the left isn't really offering the progress that it claims. I think it's also used as a shield by people who are right-leaning but don't want to admit it out loud.
...unless you can find a single good example of a notable left-wing proponent suggesting that horseshoe theory is valid, actually.
This and 1000 times this. It is so absurd: of course it seems ad hoc plausible to treat roughly similar things as if they were the same. However: never do this in this forum, since this is a community is looking a lot into all kinds details, so you will get called out.
But somehow – SOMEHOW – the same people that ask for nuance in everything act as if it would be even remotely plausible that the two most polar opposites of political theory would be basically the same for all important intents and purposes if thought to an end.
It is simply mind-blowing. People looking at something, seeing it is complex, stopping their thinking and just somehow feeling their way to the most empty assessment ever: "probably the same consequencesif you think it to the end". Without even having begun to think their way through it!
But I get it: thinking is nice as long as it is a purely intellectual endeavor but not if any personal moral responsibility is concerned. You might be morally obligated to draw consequences in your behavior – Heaven Forbid!
I really hope this realization makes you reconsider your distrust of "leftists steeped in anti-imperialist ideology", and whatever ideology you carry.
See also: “tax is theft.”
If you wanne see trump as the messenger of bad news, this could still hold.
> somehow completely controlled by Russia
Yeah, about that... Analysis by Grok says "75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset"
https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6
Can you imagine if this were true?
Trump clearly respects Putin and sees Putin as a role model for himself. Doesn't matter if he compromised.
Trump's actions towards the EU has resulted in a massive increase in military spending by those nations. This is exactly what Trump has demanded of them. This is consequential to Russia and in no way good for them. To think Trump is "controlled by Russia" is such a tired, worn out farce.
He has already ceded the two greatest Russian demands re: Ukraine, without a negotiating table even being set up yet. Why did he do that?
[flagged]
The only path to believing this is to accept Trump communications exclusively.
The entire Trump ecosystem is now prohibited from saying that Russia invaded Ukraine. Reality plays no role in any of these narratives.
Trump may or may not be a literal Russian agent. But his actions are indistinguishable from one. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, I'm equally tired of seeing it.
I'm not sure if you saw my parent comment which circumstantially refutes your assertion that Trump's actions are indistinguishable from that of a Russian agent. I don't think someone courting the Russian interest would encourage the armorment of it's neighboring continent.
> Trump's actions towards the EU has resulted in a massive increase in military spending by those nations. This is exactly what Trump has demanded of them. This is consequential to Russia and in no way good for them. To think Trump is "controlled by Russia" is such a tired, worn out farce.
The idea that the empire has a burden to civilize the world is a common theme in empires throughout history.
It's part honest desire to do something good with the position history has afforded the empire, and part self-serving rationalization, depending on who is doing the talking.
I'm the most cynical person I know, and somehow I spent 38 years thinking the US would always be on top, and despite the smaller scale invasions and the odd assassination, would maintain world peace and fund prosperity for all in terms of fundamental research.
I knew that democracy was fragile and that losing it could happen to all of us - except the US. somehow I believed their separation of powers would always work, that the pretence of freedoms would always be in the interest of Western oligarchs.
it's been a tough 6 weeks for me.
The US has always been a plutocracy with democratic trimmings. Exactly like ancient Rome.
The difference now is that the plutocrats are high on their own supply.
There used to be an understanding that if they didn't give something back they'd end up hanging from a lamp post.
Now they've decided the little people and their silly little planet are disposable, and AI, magic robots, and a cult of narcissism will replace them.
Absolutely lunacy, with consequences as expected.
it does occur to me that maybe they think robot soldiers will soon be able to keep them safe from the revolution, but honestly, they're probably just greedy and reckless.
And the billionaires controlled by Russia: "Musk says he could 'collapse' Ukraine frontline with Starlink decision" - https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-trump-zelenskyy-putin...
Calling Republicans jealous and afraid is a good way to make yourself feel better but very much misses the character of what's happening. The "I'm a superior son of a bitch" attitude of leftists is gross. Saying "they're just jealous" is something you tell children.
What you're saying here is "we're better than everyone else and everyone else disagrees with my positions because they envy how awesome we are".
Can you please explain the character of what's happening in a way that isn't demeaning to anyone? It's hard for me to view these events while inside without assigning blame.
Democrats have a real problem with saying true but demeaning things that you have to discuss when coming up with strategy, out loud in public.
Hillary’s “deplorables” thing was maybe the most prominent example. Her point was that democrats who think that all republicans are committed to evil positions we can’t compromise with or entertain isn’t correct! Only about a third of them are, according to the data. The rest could maybe be reached or worked-with!
This is true shit you say in blunt terms in a strategy meeting or nerdy discussion groups, not in public, because poli sci is just full of demeaning stuff about voters, because they are stupid and often evil and if you study democracy soberly that’s what you’ll find, and you have to grapple with it to act effectively, but you don’t say it in public because most voters also don’t know that stuff because they’re not poli sci nerds. She, and/or her speech writers, had been around strategists and wonks too much.
[edit] on the other hand, one wonders how much this really matters when Trump wins while saying worse things about all kinds of folks. The way the media approach and characterize and amplify (or don’t) the messages may matter more than what’s actually said.
I find complaining about basked of deplorables coming from the conservative side to be the height of hypocrisy. The same people compete with each other who will be more insulting.
They voted for Trump, twice. They love it when politicians are insulting.
Trumpers are utterly immune to declarations of hypocrisy, as people who refuse to engage in good faith often are. There's basically no point in calling it out.
> "we're better than everyone else and everyone else disagrees with my positions because they envy how awesome we are".
Now what American would ever think that?...
Oh please. Between "libtards" and "snowflakes" and general condescension and insults comming from the the right for years and years, it is getting really tiring when the same people suddenly become thin skinned.
For years we have been listening "fuck your feelings" coming from the right.
“Fuck your feelings” came from the left…
"Fuck Your Feelings" was strongly and rapidly adopted as a slogan by Trump campaigners in 2019. Prior to that it wasn't strongly used in a political context, instead used nonpartisanly as disparagement of ones opinions in general. It didn't come "from the left".
Can you substantiate this?
The only reference I can find before Trump is the lil Wayne song that came out in 2014:
https://genius.com/Lil-wayne-fuck-yo-feelings-lyrics
Before that nothing:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=F...
The internet is filled with pictures of Trump supporters wearing flags that say "Fuck your feelings" though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs
So I'm wondering what evidence you've come across that this phrase came from the left.
It always ends up happening how you least expect it, though maybe that expectation is evidence that it was bound to happen via a different road anyway.
At the end of the day, the problem isn't really Trump. The American Empire isn't going to end because its only exporting $300B of military might to the world instead of $600B, when no one else on the planet is scratching $50B (I made these numbers up as an illustration).
It might end because it seems like the media landscape has entirely striated the US population into two groups: One group who genuinely and deeply believes that these actions are necessary for the continuity of the US way of life, and another group who genuinely and deeply believes that these actions will destroy the US way of life. No one makes any good faith effort to understand the other side; even my suggestion that this division is the real threat will get downvoted by HackerNews' overwhelmingly leftist bubble. American political discourse is now dominated by people who cannot allow even a single imperfection in their coat of armor, Trump cannot possibly be wrong about anything, his supporters cannot admit they might not have known the implications of what they voted for, the left cannot possibly be wrong about any of their criticism of him, we're screaming past each other.
Interrogate your inner thought process right now; were you thinking "What side is this person on?"
Its so difficult to get the full picture of understanding of the other side. Trump is rich, egotistical, and doesn't listen to the counsel of others; but Russia is controlling him? Trump wants to reduce the federal debt levels of the United States; but is hellbent on spending anything to deport economically productive illegal immigrants? Trump is silencing the media and kicking them out of the white house; while streaming more than Pokimane, direct from the Oval Office, just rambling for hours a day? Trump supporters were hoodwinked and lied to; yet more than any President america has had for decades, Trump is doing exactly, to the letter, what he said he'd do on the campaign trail; its just that the left didn't believe him back then, because we're so used to Presidents that do nothing. America's children have the worst test scores in the G20, and cost the most to educate; we should continue what we're currently doing? America's healthcare outcomes are among the worst in the G20, and most expensive; we should continue the path we're currently walking?
We're in a crisis of understanding right now. We need more moderates. We need people who understand both sides of the coin, and can have a reasonable conversation about why the past 20 years hasn't worked for most Americans, and also why Trump's policies also won't fix things. My fear, however, is that we won't get that in 2028; instead we're just going to move into our camps further, with a leftist version of Trump v JD Vance, and we'll dig further down the hole of two sides that need each other to solve the problems we face, but refuse to work with one-another.
> No one makes any good faith effort to understand the other side
I do and have.
Too many of their issues are simply made-up for me to get much traction, though. You see one outrageous thing after another and go “omg if that’s true it does seem pretty bad!” and then it’s almost always not true when you look into it. You can do this all day long with Fox News, let alone even nuttier sources.
That’s fine if Trump wants to spend less or even withdraw from NATO.
Doing it like it just did with basically no notice is a stabbing in the back to former allies of the US. And Republicans are also not saying much.
That behavior should and very likely will not be forgotten by Europe.
The next phase that makes sense is an iron curtain between 4 blocks (US, Europe, Russia, China). Like during the Cold War, it is the approach that will minimize the risk of war.
I wonder if part of the problem is that we abdicated our information intake to online sources, which for whatever reasons end up driving the divisions (engagement optimization, ads, money interests, etc.).
Where information input before the Internet might have been: 20% newspapers, 50% face-to-face (at the bar, church, work), 10% radio, 20% TV, now it's more like 80% Internet, 10% TV, 10% face-to-face. And it seems to make it a lot easier to grow hateful without the human element.
Trump does not want to reduce US debt level- Trump wants a tax cut. If government spending decreases as a result of DOGE that will not result in lower debt- it will result in a bigger tax cut.
The savings from DOGE ( if there will be any) will pass on to rich people, not to the average American voter.
No one on the left is surprised by what Trump is doing. The people who are surprised are his voters.
"I thought he was going to hurt those other people, not me."
Well. About that.
The problem isn't even left vs right. It's a media system that has parted company with reality and deliberately promoted lies and rage bait for clicks and distraction.
It's a huge machine. It's not just Fox, it's the entire network of neoliberal, now neofascist media outlets - from think tanks and "serious journalists", to bot farms and weaponised social media that promotes selected views and deboosts others, to podcasts, influencers, megachurches, mainstream econ schools, MBAs, startups... all promoting the same dysfunctional reality-denying neoliberal supremacist views under various guises.
It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow decline.
They even say this - Rubio said that we do not live in a unipolar world any more - a comment which attracted weirdly little notice.
Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world which did not exist. That's why the Ukraine war, from the American imperialist perspective, backfired.
The achilles heel of the American empire was, ironically, always profit and greed. If there is one thing that could be used to persuade America to let its industry rot it is profit and its industrial malaise is largely responsible for the ever-more-obvious decline in hard military power.
> It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment
Sounds like a destruction. The administration is abandoning both the US soft power and its abilities to project through allied countries.
USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color revolution are over.
The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail it backfired.
No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
Germany must be wondering why it is keeping enemy bases on its soil.
Japan was just asked why the US spends so much defending it...
Because they went in to protect their own interests in the world after the world war 2. They dropped 2 nukes on Japan, remained in the country, and now they want money. Crazy people.
[flagged]
Given that all continuity of agenda posts are downvoted, they are probably true. Political truth is always downvoted.
What is expected is to react to the latest headlines, accept them as truth and fight an approved R vs D battle.
> Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world
Incorrect, Biden treated China as a rival power and pursued an industrial policy based on this view.
Incorrect. He tried to box in China and contain it as a solely regional power by building military bases along the first island chain and flipping countries into the US sphere of influence.
If China started doing something similar in North America the US would probably invade that country almost instantly (e.g. like it almost did to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis).
"backfired" makes it sound like you believe the US started the war
I assume they meant that the Biden administration's approach backfired because instead of isolating Russia on the world stage it strengthened its ties with other countries and China in particular.
Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin apologist.
Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
The NATO Expansion line has been disproven to death.
Putin sees the fall of the USSR as a historical wrong that must be righted. He uses NATO Expansion as an easy excuse to sell to the rubes, but it's just that, an excuse.
He was going to go after Ukraine and Georgia NATO or not.
It hasnt been disproven even once. The usual attempts to do so deny geopolitical realities (e.g. assuming the Finland-Russia border is as vulnerable as the Ukraine border).
Georgia was, obviously, left alone after it dropped its NATO ambitions, disproving the rather quaint theory that Putin is intent on reforming the USSR.
Excuse me? Are you claiming that occupying 20% of Georgia's land mass is "leaving them alone"?
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
Even person who panders to Putin repeat bullshit Russian propaganda? How surprising. The NATO expansion excuse is just ignorant talking point. Russian imperialism is the very reason why every neighbour of Russia (apart from the ones that are it's puppet states) want to be in NATO, not the other way around.
According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating security policy to a population double its own. You may choose to believe that you can count on one hand the number of countries in the world with genuine sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other countries will beg to differ.
Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure why anyone would think of this as novel.
>Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits
Obviously American left coast DNC die hards and neoliberals hate him with a passion that beggars belief but he's basically still a different face of American imperialism repesenting similar goals with a changed strategy. Patching things up with Russia is part of that.
The conspiracy theory that he's a Russian plant is amusing, but a delusion to which even the most die hard Putin supporter cannot reach. I guess it's easier to admit than the idea that America lost.
Putin is the reason why NATO had more members join. This war is 100% all Putin's making.
The cause of a war is the first illegal action in it.
Allying with other countries is not illegal, therefore it cannot be a cause of a war.
russia invading a sovereign country is illegal, therefore it was the cause of the war.
NATO didn't expand. More countries joined it. That's rather a significant nuance.
Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join voluntarily in a fractious security environment.
It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
That's not a gang against another here.
Those are democratic, sovereign countries, in an international order governed by law. Joining voluntarily a _defense_ alliance.
And one bully country that keeps on bullying, and pretends to be the victim of everyone, and unlawfully attacks a neighbouring country.
Despite its own twisted narrative, if someone took the wrong decision, that's Russia.
From whom do the joining countries feel they need security, in this "fractious security environment"? :)
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
EVEN Donald Trump? As if minihands is the staunchest critic of Russia? I mean, c’mon. Pretty much _only_ Donald Trump claims this outside the context of actual Russian propaganda.
It’s a terribly flimsy argument. Like, no-one has ever, as far as I know, said that Poland should invade Belarus because it joined the CSTO, say. Because that would be obviously ridiculous; actually joining, never mind wanting to join, a defensive treaty organisation is no sort of excuse for invasion. None of this makes any sense unless you accept to start with that Russia has some sort of rights over Ukraine, and no-one really buys that except for Russia.
"Even" Donald Trump? The man who many accuse of being a Russian asset and having more sympathy for Putin than for decade-long allies? That Donald Trump?
I don't think you understand some terms you are using, ie unipolar
There's a grain of truth to what you're saying. Trump is a 1990s Democrat doing what Obama promised to do but was too captured to do.
Some truth in your comment, but Obama never promised to dismantle American Empire and never had any rhetoric even close to something like that.
No, he is obviously not.
It seems clear that rayiner is referring to this issue:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43311416
"normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world military was the goal for us liberals back then"
... and not some expansive idea that Trump is just like 90s Democrats.
Comparing 90s Russia to 2025 Russia is naive at best. Not even Clinton at his Bill-Clintonest would think of normalizing with Putin's Russia in 2025 had his presidency time-travelled to today.
This is before we look at the cost of "normalizing" relations with Russia, if we assume that's what Trump is doing. Turning back to allies, ripping up treaties and trade deals, threatening annexation, knee-capping your own Military-industrial complex, the list goes on. That's nothing like liberals in the 90s.
You're disagreeing with rayiner. I have no position and nothing to say on this.
You might wish to reply to that specific comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43311416
Yes, I’m referring specifically to the anti-imperialist angle.
There were lots of factions within the anti-imperialist left, but fundamentally there was a distrust of “foreign-policy experts.” And while Trump isn’t a pacifist (and I’m far from one) that’s the part that he really gets.
The anti-imperialist angle is the same as pro-Ukraine, and opposing Russian imperialism.
It's easy to confuse anti-imperialism with pacifism, but you have to remember the anti-imperialist supported anti-colonial warfare even back in the 80s and 90s. Supporting a war to resist imperialism is completely congruent with anti-imperialism, and explains support for Ukraine.
There's some truth to this, but the bigger issue is that we've been paying A LOT in taxes for A LONG time and because larger and larger portions of that are going to pensions, people are starting to second guess every expense.
The good news - form my perspective - is that the GROWTH in the percentage of the workforce living off pensions is slowing dramatically and is now under REAL growth, which means working folks might feel like life is getting better again.
The reason people have complained that life hasn't gotten better for workers over the last 20 years is because nearly all growth has gone to more people being retired and the 0.1%.
If you keep the same growth, but the number of people retiring slows, there's a little more wiggle room with the pie.
I moved from Australia to the USA (be careful who you swipe on dating apps) and went from paying 50% tax to 15% tax for basically the same job with basically the same quality of life. Tax in America is outrageously low which is no doubt why it cant balance its budget (though I approve of cutting government spending aswell).
Counterpoint: I’m in the US and my effective income tax rate is in the mid-40s, with my marginal rate over 50%. And I’m not in one of the few states with the highest state income taxes.
The highest federal bracket is 37%, the highest state bracket in the US is California at 13.3%, Medicare at 2.9% if you're self employed, NIIT caps out at 3.8% - so even earning well into seven plus figures, with punitive NIIT, only puts you at a max of 47% marginal. Social security taxes stop long before the brackets kick in.
NYC has combined local and state top marginal rates of 14.776%, to go up to 48.476%.
I call BS on marginal rates exceeding 50%
Edit: even the new 2024 California payroll tax cap lift and mental health tax on seven figure incomes put it at 49.1%. Marginal rates that high don't exist in the US. Even then that requires paying payroll taxes and NIIT on the same income, which I'm pretty sure is impossible.
A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that an income of $1 million gets you an effective tax rate in the mid 40s in California.
AGI: $1000k Federal Income Tax: $322k California State Income Tax: $102k FICA Taxes: $32k Total tax: $456k
Compared to say Germany, where for the same income you would be paying over 50% in taxes. So I think you're doing very well.
Admittedly I live in Texas (no state income tax) but where do you pay 40%? California?
25(federal)+8(social security)+5(state) is a common combination. That's 38%.
God forbid you live in NYC and it can gonna to 42%
A single W-2 earner making $1 million has a 33.49% effective federal tax rate (OASDI, Medicare, Income) taking only the standard deductible and doing nothing else to lower their taxable income (no tax advantaged accounts, not spending enough in categories that allow itemization, etc.). A single non-W-2 earner (has to pay the employer part of payroll taxes) has an effective rate of 34.84%.
If they're married the rates are 29.62% (W-2) and 30.97% (non-W-2), under the same assumption that they do not do anything to qualify for either reduced taxable income or any kind of rebate or credit.
Most people don't make $1 million, and those that do have ways to reduce their tax burden quite a bit without much trouble.
EDIT: Small modifications to the numbers above, they were off by about 0.4% to 0.5%.
Social security is 6.2% and is capped (you only pay social security taxes on a max income of $168,600). So if your income is 168,600 you pay $10,453 in social security taxes.
And if your income is $1,000,000 you still only pay $10,453 in social security tax.
$176,100 this year, and you should also include Medicare which is 1.45% and has the same cap. That does mean a base 7.65% federal tax rate for most W-2 earners. But when you work out the math on the effective tax rates for income tax (not payroll) it takes a lot to hit 25% as your effective federal income tax rate.
Around $350,000 gets you to a 24.8% effective federal income tax rate if you're single and only take the standard deductible, $700k if married. That puts you in the top 3% and 1%, respectively, of incomes in the US these days.
But that gets reduced when you include things like tax advantaged retirement accounts, various tax credits, dependents, paying for health insurance, possibly being able to itemize (more likely at those incomes than the US median income). So really you have to be making something like $400k-500 as a single person to hit 25%, and $800k+ for a married person.
> same quality of life
What is your bill when an ambulance brings you in? When you have a legal problem at your workplace? What will be your pension? How is the mass transit system? What do you pay for child care, how is your school, how safe is your neighborhood, how do the number of murders in your area compare?
In US, employer pays their share of social security + medicare taxes, which is about 7.6%. If you are self-employed, you need to pay both the employee and the employer side (about 15.2% taxes, mandatory).
When we briefly had a balanced budget (kinda, if you squint just the right way) we had 1990s tax levels and a major economic boom.
We’ve since had two major rounds of tax cuts by republicans, so a balanced budget isn’t feasible even in booms and when we’re not deficit spending on two stupid wars. And now we’ve got all the interest on the debt from those tax cuts and wars to worry about.
If only anyone could have predicted this. Oh wait, everyone who knew anything about taxation policy did.
"Tax in America is outrageously low which is no doubt why it cant balance its budget"
Neither can France, which redistributes over 50 per cent of its GDP.
The hunger for public monies will eventually outrun any feasible taxation system.
Taxes aren't the problem.
How do I know? Because my parents earning ~1000 USD per month each living in Poland have higher standard of living than most Americans. Despite paying ~30% taxes.
You have to add up what the taxes pay for in the calculation. Free healthcare, free university education, good public transport, low inequality (= low crime). All of that adds up to higher standard of living achievable with pretty shitty earnings.
Oh and before you blame it on military spending - we spend higher% of GDP on military than USA. Russia is a shitty neighbor, we have to.
American problems are exactly the opposite of what Americans think they are. You are in dire need of some social democracy.
> Free healthcare, free university education, good public transport, low inequality
And I think these are all difficult things to do well and make money, as in doing a good job in healthcare, education, etc. is not really profitable. So, they are areas for government involvement.
Lack of civic pride and a lack of belief in even the possibility of effective government means that the US -- and many countries like it have a) ineffective civil service and b) ineffective government.
Going at it with a chainsaw isn't going to help.
That's an interesting perspective, that could be used as an argument by both camps. You say more social democracy, someone else might say, more social cohesion due to shared cultural background and low immigration.
Social democracy is orthogonal to immigration policy.
You can have welfare state with close or open borders and anything in between, and you can have libertarian state with close or open borders.
For the last few years most EU countries have been going towards pretty strict immigration policy but not towards libertarianism.
Also Poland is not a good example (it's been accepting A LOT of immigration since ~2014 - more than average in EU). But that argument gets pretty detailed very quickly so unless you want to go into it - I'll leave that alone).
The country has been growing and people getting rich taxes are not the issue that’s just Republican propaganda
The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more.
Playing only zero-sum games. A positive sum outcome, where both of us benefit, is inconceivable!
Not even a zero-sum game, just straight up "everyone has to lose, but I have to lose less", a negative sum game I guess.
Take a step back and consider how hardened the divide is between “the two sides”. It should have never come that far, how are you gonna keep national unity in a situation like that!? Are there other first world countries that are that divided?
The US voting system is probably fairly unhelpful, here. Most democratic countries have _multiple_ sides, and need to form coalitions; compromise is, of necessity, more of a thing. For instance, the next government in Germany will likely be a centre-right/centre-left coalition.
To add: Beyond the need for compromise, a multi-party democracy also provides a safety valve; if a fringe element of a major party grows _too_ fringe, it will often just break off (in the last 20 years Ireland has had _two_ new minor parties emerge from an anti-abortion/anti-LGBT fringe breaking with a major party, say). In two party systems, you instead tend to get ‘big tent’ parties, with the fringe elements on the inside, and sometimes one of the fringe element takes over. For instance, see the US Republicans with Trumpism, the UK Conservatives with Brexiteers (and later an attempted, though largely failed, takeover by Truss’s lot, and, er, whatever the hell they’re doing now, who even knows anymore), and arguably UK Labour with Corbyn’s faction (again, this didn’t really last).
(The UK’s a bit of an oddity here in that it’s _kind_ of a multiparty state for historical reasons, but doesn’t really have the right type of electoral system to support a multiparty system.)
It's the root of the problem imo. However, with the majority of the population on a middle school reading comprehension level, it's impossible to explain.
Disenfranchised, easily manipulated voters that want to tear down the system on one side, and people whose convictions are still somewhat based in reality on the other.
US is probably worse cause no social system, but germany for example also feels divided.
Half of the population benefits from the status quo while the other suffers. It is hard to tell whose fault it is, if this question even matters.
How is Germany divided?
Did you see the areas that voted far right? Lots of overlap with firmer East Germany
That would not be a split in halves, by any means, though. East Germany accounts for about 15% of the population, last I looked. Also, the far-right AfD got about 20% of the votes in the recent election. That is also not a split in halves.
Why squabble at semantics here fixating on exactly half? 1/5th of modern Germany voting for the modern incarnation of the nazi party is a disgrace and speaks to the propaganda situation their population faces.
Simply because the statement was "half of the population benefits [..]". That is wrong. Feel free to skip corrections that annoy you.
You can see for yourself: https://bundeswahlleiterin.de/bundestagswahlen/2025/ergebnis... This shows the winners of the "second vote." Dark blue = CSU (conservative party), its outlines are identical to Bavaria because this party only runs there and, this time around, won 100% of the second votes. Cyan = AfD, far right-wing party. Its outlines are nearly identical to the borders of the former GDR. Gray = CDU, CSU's sister party, making up for most of the remainder.
East and West. The differences in economic output and political leanings are stark.
Maybe the Nazi side of the country is to blame
Hilarious that this is controversial
Increasingly so most western countries are getting fractures by the Russian and Chinese propaganda apparatus. Ask any rural/working class western european these days and whatever rhetoric they are primed to regurgitate to you is not dissimilar to what you’d get from a similar american: people who aren’t white are destroying the country they claim, they claim they should be more insular and less tied to the global stage, and they are trusting charlatans who speak to these bigoted positions without ever actually reading their policy positions that solely benefit the oligarch class in that country.
You mean (almost) a quarter of the population--only 47% of Republicans actually support funding Ukraine less [1]. There are plenty on both sides that disapprove of the foreign policy decisions of the current administration.
I've seen these "people in party x categorically do y" comments a whole lot more recently, and it really feels like a net negative to political discourse. Based on the source I pointed to earlier, there seems to be a plurality of support for at least continuing aid to Ukraine, with only 30% believing we're sending too much. Us vs them mentality won't help people recognize and voice disapproval of decisions within their own party that they don't agree with; we need to concede that people may vote a candidate for a narrow set of reasons (thanks to the two-party system) and have political discourse that encourages disagreeing with certain of your own party's views.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans...
That data is outdated. That support has eroded since then, and will continue to erode now that Trump has stopped equivocating (lying) about his position on Ukraine.
Hate to break it to you, but people in the GOP will support anything Trump tells them to. The right wing political ecosystem is a closed system and it’s driven from the top down, and they’ll believe anything they’re told, so long as the entire ecosystem is reinforcing it. They spent 60 years building this system; it works really well now. And it’s the reason the country is now being dismantled, and the reason there’s nothing anyone can do about it. This system was the cracks in the foundation and Trump was the nitroglycerin.
There is nothing like this on the Democratic side of the fence. There’s no centralization of opinion, and there’s no media ecosystem whatsoever. The so-called “mainstream media” is now all owned by right-wing or at best center-right billionaires, so Democrats can’t actually push a message even if they could get it together, because they don’t have any microphones.
There were attempts at a Democratic media ecosystem, all of them sabotaged by centrists who didn’t want progressives to gain power. Because “better things aren’t possible” wasn’t a winning message and people on both sides of the political fence generally prefer progressive policies (until you associated them with the Democrats, then GOP support plunges.) But it would threaten people like Nancy Pelosi whose power and personal fortune derive from doing massive favors for defense contractors.
There is a huge centralization of opinion among democrats. They all made tiktoks last week reading from the same exact script. If anything they would hugely benefit from a diversity of opinion.
> as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more.
if it was only half of the US population they want to hurt, it's also the rest of world, even the environment.
Not half - but probably around 30%
Most of politic seems to be about negotiating to keep a third of the population away from power. Because once they get in power they will trash almost anything in their path
But that isn't what has happened or is happening.
Holy strawman, batman.
There’s certainly no shortage of MAGA folk whose primary motivations are “owning the libs”. But I think there’s plenty of people who just truly believed in the nonsense Trump was selling.
No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans.
They're almost certainly wrong about the medicine, but their diagnosis isn't far off: globalization has not helped them as much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns.
Edit: Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
Saw an interesting article on zero-sum thinking as contingent on the idea that the pie stays fixed, thus ruling out the possibility of "lose a little now, but the pie grows overall so your share grows more to compensate" (the basis for friendly trade relations, basically).
What I realized was that, for people who've been "left out of the benefits of the global economy", that picture makes total sense--the pie didn't grow, and in fact probably shrank for them. Thus, zero-sum thinking makes perfect rational sense. It's an accurate worldview, and anyone trumpeting "the pie will grow, you just need to give up a little more (in increased taxes or jobs shipped elsewhere)" in spite of the evidence that IT HASN'T, must be either a fool or outright lying to them.
Anyways, for the first time I felt myself understanding a little bit how these voters may feel.
It's actually a bit worse than that, from their perspective. What if they see it as someone telling them "sure, the pie will shrink for you, but for me and mine it will grow and I'll get a bigger share of it and you should take one for the team so I can prosper"...
Who would go for that? If it were merely about the pie shrinking, maybe that's just inevitable, and reasonable people would have to concede that it must shrink. They feel as if there is an element of fraud in the proposals that are made. Rather than miscalculation, rather than misfortune.
Their pie shrunk, because they have nothing of value to offer. And instead of buckling down and figuring out how to provide value and making things better for themselves, they have decided to ruin everything for everyone (themselves included!) Coal mining is dying, and it isn’t coming back, not because of some liberal agenda, but because renewable energy is a better business model. Car manufacturing has been automated and/or shipped overseas, because no one wants pay a premium for a shitty car, just because it was made by Americans.
But, instead of focusing on spinning up solar panel production factories or cutting edge automation in automobile manufacturing or funding world class universities to reskill people in things the modern world needs, they’d rather double down on their protectionist agenda while blaming the liberals, despite it being 100% their own fault. Fucking over the liberals might make them feel smug, but the conservative position is worse, because now there isn’t the remote possibility that they can get government funding for all these “socialist agenda items”, never mind that it would actually help them.
I’m not saying you’re defending their position, but I am saying that they need to get over themselves, because that’s the only way things get better for them. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying things don’t suck for them. I’m sorry for them that life is hard, and things change. It would certainly be nice if we could just do the things we’re used to and like forever without needing to adapt. But shit changes, and being mean to trans people or whatever just isn’t going to make their lives better, it’s only going to make every one else’s worse too. We rely on each other. We have no choice not to. So instead of being antisocial, they need to grow up and join the rest of us in the society we’re trying to have.
> Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns.
And so… they vote for the cheaper goods and killing their towns more?
> the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time.
The Democratic platform has been around providing succour and training to rural areas for several election cycles, Clinton’s campaign included 30 billions in infrastructure, training, and redevelopment, as well as healthcare and pension safeguard for coal counties.
And how has that been working out for those communities? Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9 administrations. Wealth inequality is as high as ever during that time period. Whether it’s because their platform isn’t actually meant to benefit them, or because of incompetence by the party in implementing it, Democrats haven’t proven to be any better to them than Republicans.
> Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9 administrations.
Democrats have had 4 presidents in office in the last 10 administrations (11 if you count the current one), accounting for 24 of the past 56 years.
Republicans block improvements and then blame democrats for not improving things. They get power and make things worst.
So, how is inflation and egg price doing now when bad democrats lost?
Don't you see how that platform is more patronizing than "I'll bring the jobs back home"? It's far more appealing to hear that your jobs were taken by cheap Chinese labor than to hear that your skills are out of date and you need training.
It doesn't actually matter in this case who is right—as I said, they're wrong about the medicine—what matters is who understands the human beings who vote better. And Trump understood these people better than any member of the establishment in either party, which is why he was able to hijack one and defeat the other.
Inventing stories about how half the country just wants the other half to hurt won't help win the midterms and the next presidency. We have to get past that and actually look at what Trump voters truly believe, then speak to them as real people, not strawmen.
I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who is right. Because reality is a thing.
Being a leader means understanding the reality of a situation, developing a strategy, and understanding where people are so you can get them on board and all work together to improve things.
It does not mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power for yourself while making their situation even worse.
It does not mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power for yourself while making their situation even worse.
It does mean “understanding people” so you can pander to their misunderstandings and prejudices, and take all the power to do whatever you wanted to do. Their prejudices are the real part of reality.
Politicians who forget this fact get owned.
You realise Trump won right?
Before you can be a leader people have to follow you, and in democracies people have to vote for you. And the unfortunate reality is that reality doesn't matter for elections, only the perception of reality matters.
So if you want to be a leader, you have to start by understanding people and, yes, pandering to them. There's a reason why too many of our powerful politicians have been essentially indistinguishable from sociopaths.
In electoral democracies people have to vote for you.
Yes, the question is what end are they devoting their sociopathic skills toward? And isn’t it the most “patronizing” thing of all to believe that people are too stupid to see that when they vote?
So far Trump 2.0 has done exactly what he promised he would, and his supporters are quite happy. If his actions don't lead to the outcomes he promised that may change, as long as someone else who understands the needs can offer an alternative.
I think we did that experiment in November, and it doesn’t support your assertion that people suddenly turn into rational performance evaluators after the election (or in this case an entire first term).
In any case, this time around the likelihood is Trump will be long dead (of natural causes, I mean) before the impact of this election is realized. The change happening right now is generational in scale. The voters’ children will be reading this chapter in their history book and asking what on earth they were thinking.
> I may be old fashioned, but it actually does matter who is right. Because reality is a thing.
Is that a position you hold consistently? Is there anything you believe that you wouldn’t be swayed on when presented evidence to the contrary of your belief?
I ask, because there is an awful lot of mainstream Republican and (here’s the controversial bit) Democrat thought that simply has no basis in reality.
All humans do that. The question is, do you want elect someone who seems to be better at perceiving reality according to evidence than yourself, or worse?
I'd love to have that choice. Neither the Republican nor Democrat party in 2025 offers me that.
Well, then you have to fall back on whether one of them is at least better at it than the other, and it’s hard to believe that would be a difficult decision at the moment.
That's one option. Another option is to reject that either major party offers a sane choice and vote for a third party.
Unless the election already has an obvious winner so your vote doesn’t matter, that’s just silly. Write an editorial if you’re unhappy with the choice, but don’t throw away your vote and just roll the dice as if you’re indifferent to the two alternatives. (And if you really were indifferent to the alternatives this time around, I don’t know what to say.)
Behold: a “both sides!” guy who uses the correct name of one political party and an epithet of the other political party. How original!
So “Democrat” is now an epithet. Please get help.
"Democrat Party" is an epithet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
Its usage often indicates the user gets their "news" from very particular sources.
"I'll bring the jobs back home" seems vastly more patronizing to me. That's just telling people they're stuck with their lot and shouldn't try to improve their situation because daddy GOP will take care of them.
The reality is most people are stuck with their lot, and that’s the point. These people understand the reality a lot better than the people making promises of retraining.
What? You think these people are literally incapable of learning to work on a solar farm instead of a coal mine? Why?
Ah, so it’s the fault of the _workers_ that the rich decided not to invest in them or their factories and instead exported their jobs overseas?
We’re talking about the “fuck your feelings” crowd right?
No I believe this discussion is about the majority of voting Americans.
The majority of voting Americans live in cities and have jobs, so I don't think that's right.
Fuck your feelings. Take their feelings very seriously.
Again, it doesn't really matter if you like them or think they're mature in their attitudes and approach, they've now proven that you can't win elections without them. Figure out how to appeal to them or watch us descend into decades of Trumpism.
... but appealing to them would mean descending into decades of Trumpism, because that's what they want.
They don't want to be appealed to, nor do they intend to compromise. They want to tear down everything I value, burn it to the ground, piss on the ashes and put me up against the wall. I know this because they've told me precisely that, and have been telling me that for nearly a decade. They've been very vocal and clear about what they want, and it isn't to be understood, or to meet anyone halfway.
I'm tired of being told that I need to capitulate and surrender and understand why I deserve the bullet. Fuck that, and fuck them.
Trumpism Delenda Est.
See, this is exactly why I felt the need to speak up. Trumpism isn't what they want, it's just the closest thing to what they want that's been offered. And if you let Trump be the only person who speaks to them for the next 10 years, you might actually find they they begin to believe that it is in fact the real thing.
The economic woes come first, and it's still not too late for a left-leaning populist to take charge of the Democrats and give the people what they need while protecting minorities and LGBT folks. The only way we get to the social justice disaster that people are predicting is if we all collectively throw up our hands and write off 50% of the voters as a lost cause.
The trouble with this argument is that if what they want is to keep the coal mines running, no one can give them that. If it’s a disqualifying event to tell them that fact and offer to help, then it seems like we’re on a dead-end road. The election goes to the people who lie about it to gain power and still do nothing about it, or make it worse.
E.g., the party who actually succeeded in doing something about health insurance just lost to the party who did everything in their power to stop it, and who immediately decided to decimate Medicaid when they took over. So you can give the people what they need and still get punished for it.
We've been hearing what they are asking for and what they are saying. The push back that Romney and McCain got from their own voters because they wouldn't attack Obama as a foreign Muslim. What will it take for people to believe that people who state "He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting" actually want to hurt people. We don't want the same things with different paths to get there. We have fundamentally different values.
I like how Trump is not what they want only when there is a need to deflect the blame. But when someone needs to deflect blame from Trump, then he is doing exactly what his voters want.
And somehow, when left and democrats are doing something bad, left and democrats are to be blamed. And when conservatives or right do something bad ... left and democrats are to be blamed.
> The economic woes come first
No they do not. Trump does not make economy better, you know it, they know it, I know it. It is not about removing fraud or corruption, Trump is fraudster and they know it, you know it and Trump himself knows it.
It was a stream of lies and hate that won and people voted for. It has nothing to do with economic policies that could help these people or not. Pretending to yourself that some rational policy can counteract it is how you loose.
>It's far more appealing to hear that your jobs were taken by cheap Chinese labor than to hear that your skills are out of date and you need training.
Training for what? What if our population of working age people is far larger than our economy's ability to absorb whatever sort of service worker you imagine they should be training to become? Given a fixed total population, there's only room for x masseuses or y graphic artists. If we have n unemployed people needing training, and that number is higher than x and y combined (for any sort of x and y), telling them to retrain doesn't solve their problem. Some are going to lose out. The truth of the matter is that by offshoring manufacturing, we created an economy where there is a surplus of ultimately unemployable people.
A message of training isn't just bullshit, it's transparent bullshit. Most people have an intuition that this is the case, after all. As for midterms, both the Republican and Democratic parties have a different strategy. They will simply import voters who will vote for them. H1Bs for the GOP, and the remainder of the naturalization pipeline for the Ds. It's slow, but they're willing to put in the longterm effort.
Training for construction and manufacturing jobs. A lot of HN users don't seem to realize this but the USA is re-industrializing at an accelerating rate as the globalized system breaks down. The electric grid is growing fast due to higher demand including generation, transmission, and storage. The chemicals and plastics industries are booming due to cheap natural gas from fracking. Ocean shipping routes are getting slower, more hazardous, and more expensive. China's labor cost advantage is eroding due to demographic collapse and horrendous central planning policies (the USA has its own challenges in those areas but overall we're in better shape).
What you say meshes with my understanding. The crux is how do we even pull up from this? It has essentially been the Republican playbook for the past few decades - the politicians enact backdoored policies that make things even worse, while personally looting and maintaining support with identity politics. Trump's main differences are the lack of usual political decorum, the level to which he's doing it, and how much his actions are openly benefiting foreign powers.
The tough nut to crack is that it is impossible to talk with red tribe voters about any of this! You can sit there and listen, of course. But as soon as you say anything that still addresses their frustration and pain, but yet diverges from their overly-simplistic party chorus, you're now part of the "other" that is eagerly responsible for their problems and will just be reflexively argued with.
And the situation has gotten so bad that lighter touch individual-freedom-respecting solutions (that they could possibly agree with in theory) aren't likely to even work now. For example twenty years ago, stopping the profligate government spending and handouts to banks could have stopped rural economies from continuing to get hollowed out. Allowing deflation in consumer goods would have allowed main street to experience some of the gains from offshoring. Re-setting the definition of full time employment to 40 hours per household per week would have slowed down the financial grindstone.
Instead these days we're basically down to direct government stimulus to create new jobs - directly at odds with the medicine they think they need. Or even worse, completely uninspiring answers like UBI.
[flagged]
Q.E.D
What's QED exactly? The comment I'm replying to is saying that
> It doesn't actually matter in this case who is right
because the only thing that's important is whose claim is attractive to the population being pandered to, and that
> I'll bring the jobs back home
is amazing despite being completely nonsensical.
And the're probably right, mind. A lot of the responses seem to agree, just couching it in nicer terms (if barely). I guess putting it in plain terms is not acceptable. As is usually the case.
The Democratic platform has been particularly tone deaf and ineffective for rural areas dependent on resource extraction industries. Federal grants won't fix the fundamental economic problems. When Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden told unemployed coal miners to learn how to code that didn't go over very well.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-tells-coal-miners-15210...
(I am not claiming that their opponents have any better solutions.)
> Federal grants won't fix the fundamental economic problems.
The economic problems are that once a location reliant on extractive industries gets too expensive (and / or gets automated leading to orders of magnitude cuts to the necessary workforce) it's not coming back, the companies either fold or leave. Europe has coal countries which folded a century ago. Once your coal is too far to be cheaply extractible, even if new tech made extracting it viable once again it almost certainly would not need anywhere near the same level of crewing. And reactivating an old mine is probably not worth the cost over upgrading mines which are still active.
So your only "fixes" are to flee the area or move to a new industry. And to do the latter, you need a way to kickstart the change. That's the goal of federal grants.
The recovery of extractive areas is difficult, and may not even be possible if too dependent. And it certainly does not happen by clinging to the extractive industry which left you behind.
I know I responded to you once already, but the other thing I wonder is if globalization is really the issue here. There's also an inherent productivity gap between densely and sparsely populated areas. Had industrial jobs not moved to China, they would have moved to the cities.
When people do build factories, which they still do, they build them in or around the cities, not in the country, despite having to pay more for land, labor, and regulatory compliance. If they do locate in the country, they choose a town that has a university and a hospital.
That's not really as true any more. The plastics and chemicals industry is growing rapidly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and those factories tend to be sited based on easy access to natural gas supplies rather than proximity to cities.
This is supported by the research:
There are committed bigots in the Republican voter base. They’re suburban and rural-rich.
The rural poor Republican voters largely are, at least hypothetically (if you can get through their media bubbles) reachable by the right economic message. They’re not in it for the racism or what have you. That’s the suburban republicans.
>No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans.
But they haven't, they're just completely uninformed about what they're getting. If you think ANY of the rural farming communities could continue to exist without significant federal subsidies, you're crazy.
Ask a farmer whether globalization has helped him or not the next time China retaliates to a tarriff by refusing to import any US soybeans and you'll quickly discover that it has absolutely helped them.
Globalization is less the cause of their issue, it's deregulation. Consolidation of manufacturing has killed plants in those small towns. Consolidation of groceries[1] has made it impossible for small-town grocery stores to survive on their own. Both can be traced back to Reaganomics.
Are the Democrats at fault for not attempting to reverse any of that? Absolutely, but the answer isn't: we need someone who wants even more consolidation and to kill all international relations.
[1]https://ilsr.org/articles/policy-shift-local-grocery/
How big a role did race and religion play? I'm genuinely curious because the mainstream media won't talk about it, perhaps out of a sense of political correctness. But it seems odd that they're framing the election as a referendum on economics, when the Trump campaign didn't even float a coherent economic agenda.
As I mentioned in another thread, the Republicans switched from "the immigrants are stealing your jobs" to "the immigrants are stealing your cats."
It played a role in giving people an outlet to attach their anger to, the same as it did in 1930s Germany. But the economics came first and are still dominant in the majority of Trump voters I speak with. The vocal minority pushing the racism and anti-LGBT stuff are not representative.
It's like you and I are reading from the same book! - If I just go off what I see online, most of the loudest anti-trans voices, and most of the racists, I'm more or less convinced have never met or gotten to know any trans people or any black people. It's a certain amount of willful ignorance on their part.
Income is one of the weakest predictors of which way you voted. Race and religion are far stronger.
That's incorrect. Gender was a larger predictor in the last election (and then married status, interestingly enough). Trump gained in both black and latino voter share. https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latin...
No, it is correct.
Here are CNN's exit polls: https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-result...
The largest split in any income group is 52-46, nearly even. The largest split by gender is only 55-43.
By contrast, Blacks are 13-86. White Protestants are 72-26. White Jews are 20-79. White nones are 28-71.
>when the Trump campaign didn't even float a coherent economic agenda
With what their opponents had? They didn't even need one.
Grew up in the midwest and still have a lot of ties there. You left out the absolutely gargantuan amount of right wing crazy propaganda that has all of them hating democrats and "The Left" and "socialists" to death. The most religious literally believe the Democrats are evil and want to destroy America. They've been harping on that for 40 years.
There are always some fraction of nutjobs in any coalition, but in my part of the Midwest that is a tiny fraction of the voters. Most are just tired of change and tired of feeling left behind. To the extent that they're riled up by that rhetoric it's because it gives them a place to put their economic frustrations.
In my experience, the average Trump voter is far more accepting than the average leftist, who will refuse to even engage with you if you think differently than they do.
This has not been my experience growing up in a rural America. Sure leftists might try to cancel you online.
But I got my face punched multiple times for not preforming masculinity in a way that they found acceptable or for standing up for someone smaller and weaker.
> Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns.
Manufacturing output in the US is at an all-time high:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
Though it's (a) smaller share of GDP compared to the 'good old days' of the 1950-60s, and (b) does not need as many workers because of automation. This is true in a lot of industries: various seaports have never imported/exports more goods, but have fewer dockworkers than decades ago because of containerization and giant cranes.
Though one problem is of 'concentrated loss': if a town/area was dependent on one factory (or industry), then it could be especially heavily hit because of that single point of failure.
That's a very very partial picture of it. There's a lot of hate about social change, people are terrified of trans people and that has been effectively turned into a culture war issue.
Also your economic story doesn't hold water. The Biden administration successfully placed tons of factories all over the country with tax incentives for clean energy, but those factories could never trumpet what they were doing because hate for Democrats and for Biden and for clean energy is stronger than any desire for jobs. Similarly the destruction of the CHIPS act and its unpopularity in rural areas also shows that the economic opportunity aspect is just an excuse for the cultural hate that has been worked up.
The best way to understand a Trump supporter that I have come to is a person that hates Democrats more than anything, and will do anything possible to bully them, including the economic destruction of the country. I have a lot of family like this, and for years I thought they were just joking or exaggerating about their hate, but the past year has shown me that they were earnest. It's not the 1990s anymore, this is a visceral culture war above all else.
>people are terrified of trans people
For no reason. Trans people aren't doing anything but trying to live their lives but the concept of being trans disrupts their view of the world. People fear what they don't understand and because they don't understand the real reasons for their struggles, everything they don't understand can be conflated by a confident liar saying they are related.
Possibly the most succinct summary has been sitting in pop culture for a quarter century but how it could apply to real life never clicked with most people: "Fear is the path to the dark side"
> The Biden administration successfully placed tons of factories all over the country with tax incentives for clean energy, but those factories could never trumpet what they were doing because hate for Democrats and for Biden and for clean energy is stronger than any desire for jobs
Nothing has changed here. It's doesn't matter what they've claimed they're doing, there are still no jobs here and working class Americans feel abandoned.
The vast majority of Trump voters around here voted for him because of the economy. The trans stuff was seen as evidence that the Democrats were so wrapped up in first world problems held by a tiny minority that they didn't even notice that the majority of the country was actively struggling to make ends meet. It's not about the trans people, it's about the narrative that Trump shaped about how that related to these people's economic lives.
IMO - the trans stuff feels like a moral panic, like on the same level as the Satanic Panic of the 80's - or the violence in video games panic, or any number of other things - I'm just waiting for the storm to blow over.
All of this is made much worse by social media too, which fans the flames hotter than it ever could have been before.
I'm not American, but the issue I saw time and time again from Americans getting interviewed by various news organizations was inflation, specifically food prices. So many people said that food was cheaper when Trump was president, so they want him and his food prices back. This is of course totally disregarding that the rest of the world also had massive inflation, and most of it comes from increased oil prices because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and governments printing money to use for Covid stimulus. The tariffs probably didn't help either, but I don't know how many of those Biden kept so I don't know if any side can be blamed there. I doubt all these new tariffs will help though.
I actually saw a couple people saying that they've received a check from Trump during Covid, and mentioned that as a clear reason to vote for him. I thought it sounded dumb when I saw that he insisted on having his name on the stimulus checks, but apparently it worked. I also saw some people, southern women and big city black men, saying that they definitely didn't want a female president. That was probably part of why Hillary lost, and making the same play this time wasn't very wise from the democrats, although I would probably blame Biden for not dropping out earlier and leaving them very little choice.
And for sure dismantling social security and all the safety nets including medicaid will help them feel welcomed again...
As I said, they're wrong about the medicine, but Trump wins by being the first to acknowledge that there's a serious problem.
He's not the first in the slightest.
In the last 30 years, which other nominee for president by one of the two parties that matter has made addressing the struggles of working class America the center of their platform?
That's moving the goalposts. There are plenty of candidates for Congress they voted against as well.
But, sure, how about Barack Obama? https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-creatin... The one who created the hated Obamacare, but they rebelled when their R representatives threatened to cancel the ACA.
No, they're the byproduct of a failed educational system and culture of unearned entitlement. They expect others to save them from drug addiction while doing every possible to prevent help. And they only have this power because of the Senate represents land instead of people.
I applaud you for trying, but HN doesn't want reason or understanding w.r.t trump or his voters. Way easier to label everyone/everything as fascist nazis and stick your head in the sand.
Thanks. I know. I'm here every few weeks with a fresh attempt. It went over better before the inauguration, but now that Trump is actually implementing the policies that he campaigned on it's a bit harder for people to stomach the idea that his voters are anything other than orcs.
I'll probably give it a rest here for a few more weeks.
> I'll probably give it a rest here for a few more weeks.
Even though you are the only person on HN who understands the working American, you deserve a rest.
Nah, there are plenty of us here, we've just mostly gone underground in the face of the mindless hate and anger that's been dominant the last month or two. Echo chambers are self-reinforcing that way.
You are a brave soldier - almost a true resistance hero. Chapeau.
How is social security being dismantled? What exactly are you talking about? Do you even know?
They fell for misinformation because the economy was improving.
People don't realize the economy isn't just a switch with good and bad
[flagged]
All my employees are Trump supporters and Trump got 75% of the vote in my county.
They want the 70s-80s economy back, but they don't want to support unions.
They think they deserve to receive government benefits. But others are moochers, and they don't deserve it.
They think Trump is deporting criminal / drug cartel illegal immigrants.
My state is red (State houses & governor have been conservatives for the last 30 years). Yet they blame all the issues on democrates. When my state signed the carry law, they thought Biden was the one who signed the law.
If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans, gays, and immigrants.
> If you are in the deep trump territory, listen to conservative/religious radio stations. You will know how much hate they are spreading against liberal, trans, gays, and immigrants.
You have to distinguish between the rhetoric being spread to hijack the economic woes and the actual root of the problem. All that stuff is designed to give people an outlet for their very real economic frustrations. It's not deep seated (yet), it's a tool to exploit them. The only reason why it's working is because these people have been ignored for too long by the establishment in both parties, and it's not too late to respond and adapt.
Where were they when Bernie Sanders needed votes to be the Democratic nominee?
Not voting in the Democratic primary because Trump had already shifted them to the Republican party.
This is happening in other countries as well. It is often the internal periphery (former GDR, rural France etc., poorer parts of the EU) that votes for anti-system parties out of bitterness.
The liberal elites are paying for their inability to keep the societal compact somewhat alive. If too many people don't have jobs and can't find a dentist, they will start a "voter disobedience".
Of course the second order effects will be huge, but it is, in a sense, necessary development. A democratic country has to be able to keep a majority of its people reasonably satisfied and well-off.
This seems to me more like simplistic attempt to quickly find the reason. In my poorer corner of Europe we vote for these "anti-system" parties for more than decade. One could argue that they actually are the system. And somehow when in the US every other time "anti-system" sentiment gains the rule (often without popular majority) people see it as deep trend while when other side wins then no-one is saying that "people like globalists". Because I think that it is not really the cause in both cases.
I think it was already 20 years ago when a French sociologist whose name I have forgotten showed that the share of vote for the Front National clearly correlated with various negative economic variables, including "distance from the closest still functional railway station".
FYI I don't believe in "THE REASON" or "THE CAUSE" and I am wary of people who reduce complex issues such as voting patterns to one single root cause, but to deny that economic hardship is a significant factor in anti-system vote seems to be wishful thinking to me.
Show me a relatively rich neighbourhood or voting district (say, over 130 per cent of average national GDP) with above average anti-system vote share, anywhere in Europe. I don't think you will find it. People who have a lot to lose don't rock the boat.
> Downvoting people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices that could be used to shape a better platform for the Democrats next time. You won't win elections by fighting a straw man invented by your echo chamber.
Living in Trump country doesn’t give you any extra credibility. I also live in “Trump Country” and say that the real reason is because they’re all goofs that fell into a personality cult due to the decline of US education and this country’s obsession with celebrity. Who is correct?
Save the downvote victim complex for Reddit.
A real goof is the one selling an evening dress to a struggling man.
It's odd to me that you start your post with "No, that's not it", because I think that both your post and the one you are responding to are exactly correct.
You state "the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans. ...globalization has not helped them as much as it's hurt them. Cheaper goods don't make up for dying towns."
I 100% agree with that. But I think that many folks are so enthralled with Trump because he was the first politician to really acknowledge this simmering rage, give it legitimacy, and say that it's all those woke, city-dwelling liberals fault. The GP comment says "The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more", but that fits perfectly in with your explanation as well. A lot of Trump supporters are pissed as hell about the hollowing out of their communities, and they're looking to bring retribution for those they blame for their downfall (or the ones Trump has convinced them are responsible for their downfall). Heck, Trump even said it loudly and proudly, "I am your retribution."
You're more or less spot on.
It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places - the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the same thing.
They remember how their towns were when they were young, they had a bustling locally owned and operated main street full of commercial activity, they also often had a factory, or mill which provided good jobs too.
Some of the parallel commenters here only think rural = farming, and thats not true. If you look at the Carolinas for example, there were textile and lumber mills - farming there is still more or less as healthy as its every been - but all of those other sources of employment which brought money in from outside of the community are gone.
This story repeats itself in a bunch of places, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and across the greater west too.
This rot started well before Reagan though - it's something I've called "the 1971 problem". If you go on a road trip across rural America, you'll rarely see a locally funded building (aka, not a chain store), built after 1971-3 - with the notable exception to this being places with a military base, college, or some other government facility - and I think the causes are multiple here, post vietnam drawdown of forces, détente, the 1973 oil crisis, stagflation, the Nixon shock, then later the so-called peace dividend after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war.
Globalization thru the 80's-90's just made all of these issues worse, and hollowed out manufacturing too - now all of this this effected cities too, to some extent, but as you mention, cities got benefits of globalization - more information economy jobs, greater wealth flowing in from the financialization of everything, which while didnt replace the jobs lost in manufacturing, did replace the wealth generated by it. (there are even more things I've not really touched on - like the steady decrease in local ownership of businesses, and the corresponding civic rot that kicks in when this happens)
There is another issue I also want to touch on here - "jobs for regular people" - for a significant portion of the population, the best job they can hope for is a decent factory job, a job in the trades - or more likely today, a not so great service job. One of the reasons I want to onshore manufacturing is that we need those higher quality jobs to ensure the benefits of our economy are shared more broadly.
I'm a proponent of tariffs as a way to solve this - not what Trump is doing which are penalty tariffs - but what I've called cost adjustment tariffs - tariffs that adjust the price of imported manufactured goods to the same level as if they were made here, where you price in labor differences overall regulatory burden, environmental and climate rules, and other factors - on a fundamental level, I feel it is immoral to export all the externalities from manufacturing to another country (pollution being the primary one I'm thinking of).
While tariffs, even at some low level may result in slower GDP growth. People cannot eat or pay their rent with GDP - a more ideal answer (one I support) is UBI, but UBI doesn't appear to politically possible - and there is also value in being able to do work where you can see the fruits of your labor (both in the physical good you've made - and the pay check you get at the end of the week), for good or for bad, it gives you self worth and a feeling of purpose too.
So I get why rural voters vote for Trump, and its because my side has failed to understand the economic pain that anyplace that isn't a tier 1/2/3 city has experienced over the last 50 years - and what their needs are for the future. In the end, I think Trump will fail them, and probably make everything else worse - but he's the horse that the American people who could be bothered to show up to vote picked (I'll note much to my consternation, that 3m less people voted in 2024 vs 2020).
> It doesn't matter that Republicans are slightly more to blame then Democrats in the thinning out of rural places - the folks who live there, IMO, see both parties as the same thing.
Yes, and they're very aware that Trump is not a Republican in the traditional sense. It doesn't matter to them which banner he hijacked, they know he's different.
I'm more skeptical of that statement - sure, I think some are aware.
Some are just blind partisans, otherwise those places wouldn't have been voting for team red for the last 35 years or so.
There is also the paradox of the low information voter too, which seemed to have broken for Trump 2:1 - that does concern me some.
Trump also has a huge benefit with low information voters, he spews noise all the time which the news media covers with baited breath.
I call it the "Trump says alot of things" problem - it allowed people to paint whatever they wanted him to be onto him by essentially cherry picking the various things he's said to make up their own collage view of whatever they wanted him to be.
I don't necessarily agree with Bernie Sanders about the medicine either, but his diagnosis is correct: the Democratic Party abandoned middle America and the working class, so they abandoned it.
America decided in the 1970s to liquidate its interior and its manufacturing base to make Wall Street rich from the labor arbitrage trade, and did so with the full throated support of both parties.
I live in the outer suburbs of a middle American city. The idea that all Trump supporters are cult members is vastly overblown. There is some of that, but much of his support is exasperation. Rural and working class Americans have nothing to lose and nowhere to go but down. The choice is to vote for Trump or keep watching everyone commit suicide with fentanyl. They know Trump might be full of shit or might not have any real solutions, but they also know Democrats and mainstream Republicans will continue to sell them out.
It's also important to understand that for the most part working class and small town Americans don't want welfare, which is the only thing the Democratic Party (possibly, maybe) offers them. They want jobs. They want to feel useful, to do useful things. Unless you are disabled, accepting welfare is disgraceful. I remember my mom (a lifelong Democrat BTW who hates Trump) feeling humiliated to use food stamps for a brief period when I was a kid. "These are for people who really need them. I don't need them." She worked as hard as she could to get off them. Americans want to do things.
MAGA is as much anti-traditional-Republican as it is anti-Democrat. In fact I know a few Trump voters whose hatred for the likes of Bush II and the Cheneys is greater than for Democrats. It's a third political party that has taken over the corpse of the Republican party that Bush II destroyed.
I didn't vote for Trump because I don't think he actually cares either, and I loathe the man in general. I also have two daughters, and his MAGA movement is full of people who cheer for pro-rape influencers like Andrew Tate or want to LARP the Handmaid's Tale. I can't vote for a movement that is openly allied with such people. Their performative scapegoating of LGBTQ people is gross too, and then there's the crazy autocrat ideologies lurking at the margins. Even if MAGA has some policy points I agree with, the movement is just too intellectually batty and personally disgusting to support.
I see nobody on the US political stage that I actually like. I voted for Harris as a "holding pattern" vote in the hope that something better will appear in the future. It's better to stay with the bad option than to go for obviously worse options. If you look around the world "just shaking things up" with nothing better waiting in the wings usually results in a bad outcome. Successful major political shifts or revolutions require a superior alternative with better ideas.
Do you think they'll be able to observe that prices are higher and their lives are even harder? My greatest concern is that the disaffected voters will be persuaded to go on a "long march," for some sort of "five year plan," that prevents them from reacting to the extreme negative effects.
How did they react to the first term of Trumponomics, with empty store shelves and massive inflation? There is always a scapegoat.
They're not as dumb as you think. They know tariffs will raise prices. What they think is that tariffs may repatriate manufacturing, leading to more and better jobs and higher wages. Lower prices have resulted from outsourcing, which has resulted in their unemployment and under-employment.
They had a different reaction to price increases under Biden because those were not resulting from pro-American-worker trade policies, or at least were not perceived as such. In reality Biden was doing some things to try to repatriate manufacturing, but these policies were badly communicated if they were telegraphed at all, and they were not enough.
Constantly assuming these people are all just stupid isn't winning back any votes. To be fair: Republicans and MAGA spend a lot of time attacking straw man Democrats and liberals too.
BTW -- I see what they're thinking, but I suspect a lot of repatriated manufacturing will be so heavily automated it will not result in the mass employment gains they're hoping for.
Accepting price increases, agricultural failure and significant hardship because in five years someone might build a factory describes the five-year plan - the real one.
Maybe the USA truly needs more than two parties, so these alternatives can have a voice.
Oh yes. The two-party duopoly is a major cause for pretty much everything that's wrong. We also need term limits in Congress, badly.
Can we add national referendums to override either house of Congress?
> have nothing to lose and nowhere to go but down
Which is it? I mean, I know it's "nothing left to lose" but how can "nowhere to go but down" fit in to that?
> The choice is to vote for Trump or keep watching everyone commit suicide with fentanyl.
Except, that's the exact same outcome you get even if you vote for Trump, unless there's something I'm not seeing?
>> Except, that's the exact same outcome you get even if you vote for Trump, unless there's something I'm not seeing?
I think you are correct.
Trump promised change and had "concepts of a plan".
Democrats promised more of the same, and then realized that that was unpopular and then threw together a plan that they said would work.
The reality now is that Trump's promised change may or may not help those voters economically, but the accompanying geopolitical disruptions may be worse.
(Also a deep-red-state resident like the GP.)
The way I look at Trump/MAGA is they took over an ineffective, sclerotic Republican party that spent 40 years talking about “family values” while selling off the productive base of the country to globalization and letting rural America rot. The tea-party movement of the late aughts was their last chance to avoid being decapitated. They failed. The Republican party has been hollowed out and is simply not the same entity it was 10 years ago. It has been taken over by a very angry insurgent force.
As I see, the Democrat Party is where the Republicans were in 08/09. They have, perhaps, a few more years of whatever it is they are doing before they similarly get taken over.
Best case scenario: we end up with a new political party (or two) that represent the more sane interests of the old guard and of the population as a whole. Worst case scenario: we end up with two absolutely insane zombie versions of our two legacy political parties fighting for control of the nation.
At least we don’t have more guns than people and a bunch of nukes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
insightful -- you should know that California Senator Dianne Feinstein and husband Richard Blum, personally made a billion dollars from creating the China -> USA cheap goods conveyor belt. Blum also owned oil transportation business. This occurred over the decades between the Oil Shock 70's and dot-com 90s. The trade changes are still playing out.
> people who actually understand Trump voters and try to vocalize their needs and perspectives just silences the voices
We’ve been falling over ourselves trying to understand these poor misunderstood Trump voters for nearly 10 years now. We’ve all heard these rationalizations many times before.
That's what populists do, everywhere including Europe - they take real issue and low-income & low-education folks (usually big overlap), tell then how they were wronged, play on their emotions, dumb down things to us-vs-them yada yada.
But they never ever deliver any real solution. Never. What trump solved in first term? No wall, he was joke of the world for that. No middle east peace - fuck, he made the invasion to Israel by giving Jerusalem official israeli status. Palestinians lost all hope at that point (I know its way more complex than that, I know, but this was the trigger point to go full mental like a cornered animal). Afghanistan withdrawal? Thats his contracts with taliban which made US look so weak they were shooting ducks as you guys and rest of west literally ran away for your life.
To make any successful long term massive changes, you need a steady leadership. trump is the opposite due to his mental & childhood issues, heck he is the epitome of instability. And so he drags whole world into same instability, changing global markets from bullish to bearish within a week, losing literally all friends and allies, globally. No, puttin' ain't your friend and never will be, he is a murderous sociopathic p.o.s. till his last breath.
If simpler folks refuse to see all this and much more and connect those few dots, your idea of babysitting them and hald-holding in ever changing environment is laughable. Even in Europe you guys consider semi-communist we don't do that, we can't do that, its idiotic. This problem is not unique to US in any way and solution ain't what he wants to do. But its so nice to hear all that crap, "I will fix your woes", "the others are to blame for all your issues" and so on. Full on emotions, 0 rationality. Folks, even societies work like that, but get ready China will overtake you sooner than you would like.
I kept thinking he is just a russian agent brainwashed in 80s during his visit to moscow (maybe deep hypnosis or something else), but it seems more and more he is doing massive favors to China actually, since russia is already insignificant globally. I don't mean some pesky tariffs, I mean whole world will realign around China, and he is giving it all to them for free. Bravo.
There are only three ways to beat a populist:
* Abolish democracy (only works preemptively, abolishing democracy while they're in charge would obviously not work).
* Wait for them to die and hope they don't teach what they know to a successor.
* Learn from them and speak to some fraction of their core even more persuasively than they do.
You don't defeat a populist by simple virtue of being right.
How much is also the hate on LGBTQ and woke people? Just curious, I see in Romaia the rise of such fascist group that suck on Putin because he also wants the woke and LGBTQ dead and he is a Christian men that kills the assassinated the traitors in the name of God.
The culture war stuff FOLLOWS from economic depression. Once someone is in the financial dumps, they're already angry, and it's easy to redirect that anger to meaningless culture war stuff.
See 1930s Germany. Even Hitler didn't arise in a vacuum, he gave people an outlet to express their anger at a very real economic disaster.
The anti-woke grassroots rhetoric around here is more about how much of a waste of time it is when they should be focused on issues that matter to people's livelihood. It's not hate on LGBTQ so much as irritation that something that doesn't seem to matter (to them) is given so much emphasis while the working class struggles.
It’s… largely being given emphasis by ‘their’ side, though? Which side of the political divide spends all their time going on about trans people? I mean, it’s very much the right.
This is 100% correct based on all the trump voters I've spoken to.
But is it given so much importance by the politicians?
The reason I ask is that here in Romania the issue is completly fabircated by the social media and amplified by the algorithm. What I mean there was not a single law pro LGBTQ passed in Romania, the educational system is not teaching children about LGBTQ, there are no changes in schools or other places to unixes bathrooms, no forced or assisted transitioning programs.
It is just media with conspiracies like the COVID vaccines makes you gay, 5G makes you gay, Bruxelles wants to make your children gay, Soros wants to make the children gay. There are also staged video with transexuals making a circus and shared on TikTok. So now we have a lot of idiots that actually thinks that we need to surrender to Putin so he can kill the traitors and the gays.
I did read "Hillbilly Elegy" and come from a rust-belt city with rural family.
I understand your perspective, but I don't think that explains most of Trump's actions. The (very valid!) critique of globalist profiteering you shared has been boiled down into something beyond economics and into tribalism.
I blame decades of right-wing media dominance on cable TV and rural radio.
Lol prepare to be talked down to.
Isn’t that wanting your cake and eating it too? Conservativism rejects progress and changes by definition, so these people purposefully didn’t adapt to changes since the rust belt occurred, and NOW they are so worse off and want blood in the water.
What changes should the Rust Belt have made that would have prevented the gutting of their communities when financiers and board rooms decided to ship their livelihoods to third world countries?
There isn’t a “progress” switch to turn on. The current state of the Rust Belt isn’t because they are full of knuckle dragging idiots inferior to the coasts. It’s because they were dealt the economic equivalent of a traumatic brain injury, and have spent decades trying to recover. Meanwhile, the areas of the country that inflicted this injury on them are now trying to convince everyone that it was their own fault.
I’m as disgusted by Trump as anyone, and would never vote for him. But I am from the Rust Belt and absolutely sympathize with the anger that would make someone want to burn the system down.
Half my family is from the south and I lived in Ohio for years. They could have stopped giving tithes to churches on every corner and giving away their land and resources at pennies to massive corporations that have no allegiance and invested in education and social programs for the long term instead or in addition. The Rust Belt and the South were WEALTHY economies don't ever forget it. You can see the remnants of that wealth in the slave quarters adjacent to every house in certain neighborhoods, the massive plantations, the rusting industrial areas. They HAD money to invest in the past for securing a better future.
My mental model is that it will hurt the S&P500 but benefit the working class.
How? Trickle down has failed every time it’s been employed, most recently in Kansas. And as far as I can tell, massive tax cuts for the donor class is all we’re getting this budget cycle.
It’ll hurt the S&P500, sure. Far less clear how it’d benefit the working class, tho. Like, how does that work? You’d expect a decline in economic activity (ie fewer jobs, and lower or negative wage growth for what jobs do exist), and an increase in prices. That doesn’t help anyone much except _arguably_ the predatory super-rich (who can buy stuff up cheap), but even then it’s not a clear win for them either.
How do you see some sort of benefit for the working class? Has Trump, Musk, or literally anyone associated with this administration ever made any move towards that? Trump in particular is famous for not paying people.
Tariffs are an inefficiency that lowers profits and raises the cost of goods but they also create manufacturing jobs which benefit the working class. That's my mental model- I'm not an economist. I also strongly disagree with the tariffs on Canada and Mexico and almost all of the current policy decisions. There might be a method to the tariffs madness though is all that I'm saying.
> I'm not an economist.
That much is clear.
This can kind of be the case with narrow, directed tariffs (protectionism of a vulnerable uncompetitive industry, for instance see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax), or in a developing country that has mostly primary industry (that is extractive industry, mining and that sort of thing). In a developed country, it’s a lot more complicated; a lot of that manufacturing probably depends on imported materials or parts (so tariffs hurt it from that direction) and a lot of the market is probably export (which tariffs also hit, for tariffs more or less inevitably lead to retaliatory tariffs).
And where you have heavy protectionism, the _consumer_ tends to suffer, as the protected industries have little incentive to make their products good or cheap. See British Leyland; for quite a while the British government attempted to keep it alive by heavily restricting the import of actually good cars. Spoiler: it did not work.
Take that thought further.
Say we put a tariff on socks. And Hanes opens a sock factory in the US. Is a few hundred sock jobs going to help the millions who aren’t making socks? Does working in the sock factory pay enough to buy computers and cars and other higher margin goods?
Generally speaking, for broad tariffs, the answer is “No”.
Tariffs could mean a few hundred sock jobs but also cotton jobs, nylon jobs, rubber jobs, dye jobs, etc.
All more expensive than importing but supports local economies. Again, I'm not an economist, and tariffs are not a panacea, but they are also not useless.
They’re useless when used as blunt instruments as we’re seeing today. Broad tariffs on raw materials and goods - the cost hurts the general public more than any benefit to the few.
There’s a place for tariffs. Protecting against countries that undercut us by skirting international labor or environmental laws is a decent example. Protecting a specific, narrow industry that has national defense implications could be another.
But against Canada and Mexico? GTFO. That’s nonsense that’s going to hurt the average consumer.
As an European with seizable(for me) position in SP500 etf, which I never inteneded to liquidate, am actually thinking to completely deinvest from US. Purely because of what Trump did and will do to Ukraine and because of his dismantling of postwar Atlantic security architecture
Here I was, thinking that the most self-sacrificing action an American well off enough to have retirement savings (no immediate tax on capital gains) could take would be to divest from all domestic stocks and funds and shift to international ones.
Might not turn out to be as self-sacrificing as I thought.
Since the Trump administration took over, Tesla shares and Musk’s wealth are up by hundreds of billions, tens of thousands of working class are fired, prices are up, tariffs are making imports more expensive, welfare help programs are cut, retaliatory tariffs are reducing exports.
How is your mental model literally backwards from reality?
> Tesla shares and Musk’s wealth are up by hundreds of billions
Not sure about musk's wealth but TSLA is down by >30% in the last 3 months.
TSLA was up about 200 pts post election. His post inauguration actions have erased all of those gains.
One quick correction — Tesla shares are down quite a bit since the trump administration took over
This is precisely correct.
Briefly, the parts of the map that voted for Trump are largely known as flyover country. To oversimplify things, the people in this area have been neglected and talked down to by some portion of the political apparatus as far back as they can remember.
In some cases, the vote for Trump wasn't meant to be anything more than punitive. To get a rise out of the politically aligned groups that can afford to fly over and - literally - look down on.
Farm subsidies and other special programs have been flowing to "flyover country" at an enhanced rate for almost a century (for about as long as the government has done things like that) as a result of the constitutional rule that says each state gets two senators regardless of population. The trade war is presently creating an economic crisis for those farmers, who primarily sell their crops outside the US.
Flyover states versus costal states is too simplistic and inaccurate. A more accurate reduction is rural+suburban (isolated insular) communities versus urban (integrated diverse) communities.
Kind of true but also kind of victim-blaming.
Part of the reason many people consider those areas “flyovers” is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in those areas.
Now, maybe there’s an obligation to turn the other cheek, reach out, and try to educate people in flyovers. But it is far too reductive to act like the blame points one way here and it’s just snobby elites who have abandoned these populations.
I think this is where "flyover" talk is so useless.
Look at Minneapolis, and Minnesota in general. Wealthy, hugely diverse, amazingly Red rural areas and unbelievably Blue urban areas. It's a lot like California, honestly.
I spend a lot of time in the “flyover” areas, and this is simply not true at all. Maybe it was long ago, but we are no longer living in that age. It seems like the media want to portray middle America as some kind of medieval redneck nightmare thunderdome, for reasons I cannot fathom.
I'm not even sure it was ever true. I think it's just become part of the folklore of urban leftists, potentially as a way to justify their lives even when nobody was demanding a justification.
Oof. Please go visit "flyover county". Its just more Americans trying to make a good life for their families.
I have visited. My long-haired male traveling companion got homophonic slurs yelled at him in the street twice in four days. I’m sure those yelling were trying to make a good life for their families by chasing undesirables out, and I suppose it worked.
> Part of the reason many people consider those areas “flyovers” is that minorities, women, gays, nerds, really lots of people, can expect to get treated very badly in those areas.
It's not all roses and butterflies but a blanket statement like "women/gays/nerds/minorities get treated very badly" in these areas is laughable and very "online"/detached from reality.
Very snobby elitist take tbh.
The main victim of this order is the US defense industry.
What Ukrainians need most are the low-cost drones made of commercial parts from Asia which have made it hard for the Russians to fire artillery and supply the front. To produce these drones, they need cash. The Europeans have mastered the art of sending cash to Ukrainian vendors that serve actual battlefront needs, and doing so under strict supervision to prevent fraud. Europe can fill the gap the Us is leaving in military aid if they spend their cash right.
For the last two years, I have supported a US non-profit sending non-lethal aid to Ukraine, my CB if it used for drone defense and EW.
https://ukrainedefensefund.org/
Cheap is a technological frontier. If you operate on that frontier, you are able to trade less expensive pieces for more expensive pieces, pawns for queens. This is the cost-exchange ratio. All other things being equal, the country that best lowers the cost basis of its materiel will win a war of attrition; ie the other side exhausts its resources first. The US does not operate on the frontier of cheap because of bad incentives, namely cost-plus procurement.
What's truly eroding trust is the voting system. A system that places so much power in a single individual with complete immunity exposes its vulnerabilities-especially in a time when people can be manipulated so effectively. To be honest, I see the lack of justice as the biggest problem. If the highest courts in the U.S. are essentially political institutions, shaped by those in power rather than acting as neutral arbiters of justice, that seems absurd to me. It feels like you can basically do whatever you want. And the lifetime mandate? That's a joke. As a European, I'm sorry for shitting on Europeans. It's far from ideal here, but I'm finally starting to appreciate what we have. Let's hope this would not spread.
Lack of trust on voting system has been brewing for a while. The Democratic establishment has successfully and unsuccessfully tried to shoehorn choice candidates last few election cycles. While republican candidates have been questionable, there's no denying that they went with whoever the voters wanted.
It didn't used to be "complete immunity", that's part of the problem
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
Sometimes people are more interested in inflicting pain to others than to improve their own situation.
A substantially sized loud minority in the US is fully committed to a death cult of personality. The rest of us are suffering and unprepared for this.
What about all the "liberals", including many on this site, that not only bought into but actively promoted the cult of personality around Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX? Musk has always been a charlatan, and the majority of this very site bought into it.
Seems like they were able to change their position when faced with enough evidence. Does not seem like the other side can.
Also, you know, literally "what about"-ism.
It’s easy to prove that half is wrong as well because all the US’ (past) global friends are screaming at the US trying to save them from driving off the cliff. It’s one thing for the US to want to remake itself - gradual, cooperative plans to reduce engagement on the world stage over multiple years would have been something manageable.
Pulling the cord with such little respect will not be forgotten. The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in 5-10 years time. The rest of the world is likely to sanction the US at this rate. It is violating all of its agreements in bad faith.
> The USD will be lucky to still be the reserve currency in 5-10 years time.
if the US regime carries on at the rate it has over the last month I expect it will be gone considerably faster than this
Practically speaking I think it requires a lot of will, momentum, and process to change this. The decision even if made soon would probably take a few years to complete.
Supplementing it may be faster (eg. adding Euro and/or Yuan) than outright replacing it, but it’s not my area of expertise. The timeframe was based on some light research.
something to remember is that a good chunk of the "dollar" reserve is in reality eurodollars
the backing of which could be switched very quickly indeed
And this will inflate away the debts tokenized in CCP-held US Treasuries. 4D chess! Russia did something similar in 1998 that sank the US hedge fund Long Term Capital Management.
This stuff moves slowly, until it doesn't. I'd honestly say at least ten years for large changes.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
Sounds like another reality distortion field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
Taiwan is now going to be seriously worried.
If Taiwan didn’t give up on the US and start making alternative plans on Nov 7th, that was a huge mistake. The US has made it clear that not only is it abandoning traditional allies, it will likely side with any invading force that exercises the “might makes right” principle.
What alternative plan is there for them?
If the PRC should actually decide to invade, it is going to be extremely difficult to hold that off on their own for an extended period of time. Which means they need allies who can rapidly deploy a sufficiently large force to stabilise the situation.
But the only way to get there is with a naval force, and air supremacy would likely be critical to the outcome of that fight, which means you need someone with a large carrier fleet, and that is pretty much a pool of one.
Without US help, there is very little hope that Taiwan would not be overrun sooner or later. Their only real hope would be a nuclear weapons programme that would allow them to credibly threaten to nuke Beijing if invaded. But the PRC would never let it get that far and would make sure to strike before that could be completed.
Certainly ultra-secret nuclear program makes sense. Perhaps working with another country with development abroad so there is nowhere directly related for China to strike in Taiwan (the calculus for “we attacked a weapons development facility in Taiwan” is different from “we attacked Taiwan because they are participating in weapons development in the Philippines)
Probably also increased military and economic ties to South Korea and Australia, and an effort to build a NATO of the area, absent the US, perhaps under ASEAN. Or something new.
It’s a tough problem but it’s a real problem and I don’t see how Taiwan could ever go back to trusting the US to defend democracies facing invasion.
It seems to me their hope is to make invasion so costly it is not undertaken.
There is a trivial alternative that military strategists have been suggesting for decades. For a nation of 20+ M, having a reservist army of 1M would be feasible and make the island impossible to invade even if the rest of Earth would join forces to do that.
Oh? The army still needs resupply, and the population needs food? Seems like a siege of an island is pretty easy.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary.
2) Thinking purely transactionally, the US is very dependent on Tiawan due to TSMC. Most of the US' largest tech companies are investing heavily in AI hardware (TSMC chips) and/or rely directly on TSMC for their own supply chain. I have no idea whether Trump et al see it this way, or this would be enough to trigger the US to protect Tiawan, but transactionally, it's immeasurably more valuable to the US than Ukraine.
> 1) Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary.
That's not a guarantee at all. The only thing he's every been honest, consistent and truthful about is that nothing is sacred, everything's on sale, no values (economic, patriotic, environmental, political) will stand in the way of his own profit, there's always the willingness to make a deal and sell something (someone) off, and fuck the consequences, no matter how gigantic, embarrassing, and suicidally bad they are. Negative-sum deals are absolutely on the table as long as he comes out richer or more powerful.
China just needs to make a good offer and Taiwan's fucked when it comes to Trump's support.
Fair point.
"Let us take Tiawan and we'll give you TSMC for the next n years" would probably be a pretty strong offering.
TSMC machines have kill switches built in for such an event. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/asml-adds-remote-...
Sure, but I'm imagining a situation where China ensures the ongoing operations of TSMC via negotation with TSMC and the Trump government, to the satisfaction of all parties, and then being 'allowed' to take Tiawan as a result. For example, they could allow TSMC to function as an American-run entity for a number of years, or offer US companies very friendly terms, or something similar.
This doesn't account for the actions of Tiawanese nationalists working in TSMC setting off the kill routine themselves, irrespective of the deal struck, but it's still an interesting scenario.
> Trump might be alienating his traditional allies and cosying up to Russia, but he still apparently sees China as a problem or adversary.
It seems to me it's hard to believe anything Donald says, or to think it could not change without warning in the near future.
Don't listen to what politician say, watch what they do, to be fair his decisions were very anti-china, I mean, maybe it going to backfire, but it was anti-chine in it's principle
He’s too erratic to take any past behavior as evidence of the future. If he breaks promises to a bunch of allies, no other ally should feel safe because he hasn’t broken theirs yet.
All it would take for a pro-China pivot is the right leverage. Cash, blackmail, who knows. But it’s just a matter of whether the price is met, not whether the deal is available.
Certain political factions* in Taiwan should be worried.
The actual Taiwanese people are breathing a sigh of relief that they are increasingly avoiding the "primrose path" of Ukraine: Catastrophic death and destruction based on lies, marginally enriching foreign countries and a corrupt domestic elite.
Defending Taiwan is - unfortunately - a suicide mission.
I'd rather not engage a hot war with China over it.
We're going to have enough on our plate keeping China out of the Caribbean and our half of the Pacific.
Buckle up.
The idea I think was that China would also rather not engage in a hot war with the US over it, and therefore would be content with the status quo (or at least content to wait for a favorable political climate in the US...).
Taiwan should be thrilled. Every indication is that this administration is letting Europe fend for itself so it can focus on the Pacific.
The pacific is not safe from this effect. Trump has also recently started complaining about our security pact with Japan.
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/03/fd3521d51353-upda...
USA had two military alliances of central importance, one with Germany, one with Japan.
The first is to keep Russia in check, the second China.
The rumours of a carve-up, spheres of influence, begin to resonate.
Problem is, you cannot run a country as if it were a business, because to do is to value influence and power above freedom, human dignity, and human suffering.
Japan’s constitution and postwar treaties with the United States constrain their ability to rearm and use military force. Those need to be amended and renegotiated in order for Japan to be an effective ally in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan’s been asking for a change in the status quo for years. Trump is signaling not only a willingness to encourage Japanese rearmament, but a willingness to sell it to the American people in terms of their own interests.
And frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if the same weren’t true of Europe as well. Ever since at least the Obama administration, the US has been begging Europe to increase their defense spending. Aside from Poland, none of them have done so. That might be changing now. Europe didn’t rearm when Obama (whom you actually liked) asked nicely. Getting to sneer at Trump and the United States is a much more effective permission structure. And then the next time we elect a Democrat, Western Europe will give him a Nobel peace prize and pretend the whole thing never happened, just like the last time.
this is the best news ever... all these other countries keep up conflict to keep the bankers happy while they exploit our resiurces for corrupt politicians and business men... Everyone crying about the economy, but our economy is already shit and extending out these corrupt ppl corrupt directives will only keep us (on the private side) in economic turmoil... We've been in perpetual conflict over 2 decades... It's time to focus on us...
If someone thinks that "We've been in perpetual conflict" includes the support being to given to ukraine, in which we send them cluster munitions that we would otherwise have to pay to dismantle while risking virtually zero american armed service member lives, they need to recalibrate their senses because they're not doing a good job.
The Ukrainian people deserve sovereignty, full stop. If someone believes in traditional American values, (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) they should support the fight against russian aggression, and IMO the flimsy and poor arguments being made about focusing on our economy reek of dishonesty when someone thinks about how integrated the US economy is with the world's.
This is one of the peak "move fast, break things" moments for the US. However, people warned about Chesterton's fences for years...
I think we have passed the Rubicon for quite some time. There's no turning back now. The equilibrium will be found in another configuration.
I fully expect that in some near future the civilian infrastructure also will be de-coupled from USA in the name of national security by other nations.
At this very moment, Apple and Google have the ability to disable communications for billions of people. They can make computers and phones totally unusable. Not just some features but everything.
EU was trying to legislate around this risk by forcing companies to bring data on EU soil and open their platform to alternative providers. They always tried to be gentle with it as companies will claim that they are taken advantage of but as the things unfold at this pace I'm pretty sure that it EU and probably the rest of the world will be very heavy handed the moment there's an instance of US president or US tech oligarch decides to shut down group of people from their devices to teach them a lesson or to compel them into something like they did with military systems in Ukraine. I was afraid for years that people will be insulated into groups and the global community will be destroyed and now I feel like its happening.
I've thought about this for some time now, and am surprised I haven't seen this voiced more often.
The way almost all societies have allowed themselves to be completely dependent on a few providers is mind-boggling.
Someone else 10,000 miles away has the kill switch for your phone, your credit card, your brokerage account, your TV, likely your HVAC if you're into home automation, maybe your car.
Just recently Musk threatened cutting Ukraine's access to Starlink and then insulted the Polish foreign affairs minister once it was pointed out that its paid by Poland. Here: https://x.com/sikorskiradek/status/1898700362460070080
Even though later he claimed that he did not mean that, I guess more people will start thinking about these things.
> they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them
I disagree. Their interests matter greatly to them, they are just totally unequipped to understand who, and what, they are voting for.
If US shine and trust is based on proliferation of war then it probably deserves to erode.
Doesn't matter that countries doesn't want F16s, pretty much any US component inside these systems means that they require US approval for the whole thing. Saab Gripens use a Swedish built version of a US powerplant, which allowed the US to deny sales of the Gripen to Colombia.
Did Ukraine buy any F-16’s? No. They’ve benefitted from the generosity of the United States since 2017, and thanks in large part to that generosity they succeeded in the defense of Kyiv in 2022. Now it’s 2025 and the war has been stalemated for a couple of years. Does the United States have an open-ended obligation to continue supporting, at its own expense, yet another forever war on the other side of the world?
The United States is still being taken for granted. And I have to laugh at the implication that the American economy will be ruined by the effect on the American arms industry when almost every American ally was neglecting their own military, instead taking American security guarantees for granted.
Don’t forget the F35s we all have.
"If you don't get support they are useless"
Is this really the case or only a long term problem? The F-35 is a totally different story.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend…
Most people everywhere generally believe what their social reference group tells them to believe. Human nature, I guess.
People believe what they want to believe. When reality turns out to not match their expectation, they quietly drop out of the conversation, without admitting they misjudged things.
Best example of that is to take a look at HN in 2022 when Musk announced the Twitter takeover. A good half of the comments were quoting Voltaire and Snowden and applauding Musk for 'protecting free speech'. The other half saw it for what it was. When Musk stories come up now, there is no one still pushing the free speech angle.
It's the Internet.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests (they have proven already that other's interests do not matter for them). This sounds like self-flagellation seen from the outside.
They aren't thinking, really. If you look at the online comments from people who support these actions, you'll notice these characteristics: they are usually listing the same talking points, using the exact same collection of key words or "facts" (even in different languages, across different cultures) often strung together like chants, have a conspiratorial notion of a hidden puppeteer directing events or people they disapprove of, conversely they often have a messianic belief in their chosen prophet, and they are usually inexplicably very angry.
You will also notice that the vast majority of them very rapidly, and across cultural boundaries, start parroting the latest talking points. Talking points that didn't exist days before and weren't on anyone's minds.
It's a form of mass hysteria.
> If you don't get support they are useless.
Yes, but any country selling military hardware would do the same if it turned coats in a conflict.
"We Are Fighting Against a Dictator Backed by a Traitor" - https://youtu.be/j51HZncBvEI
https://www.independants-senat.fr/post/claude-malhuret-situa...
It’s in my personal interest to not spread war and weapons throughout the world. We should cut off all weapons exports.
The chicken hawks that make up the majority on HN don’t share that view unfortunately.
The reality is the military industrial complex has massively corrupted our foreign policy for decades resulting in one disaster abroad after another and trillions down the drain.
Buying high-tech American weapons comes with an implicit condition: they can only be used with U.S. approval.
The U.S. has long leveraged this strategy to control governments. Do you think Saudi Arabia could use its American-made jets to attack Israel?
Now, Trump is pressuring Ukraine to start negotiation under these terms:
1. Allowing parts of Ukraine to be annexed,
2. Permanently blocking NATO membership, and
3. Signing a “mineral deal” to sell resources to the U.S. at cut-rate prices.
It's not the first time it happens. For example, in 2006 the US stopped supplying spare parts to F-16s it sold to Venezuela.[0] Oddly, other countries kept buying F-16s.
Or think about Boeing and Airbus stopping servicing the planes they sold to Russia. Other countries are still buying from them as if nothing happened.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/story/venezuela-threatens-to-sell-f-...
The difference is that now European countries, and other (former?) US allies are starting to see the US as a threat. With people like Trump in power, the chance of a military conflict between the EU and the US is now non-zero, so what's on everyone's mind going forward will be independence from US tech. Maybe you haven't seen European news and commentary.
US's republicans still don't grasp what a diplomatic mess Trump is causing, which will surely affect all trade. Actually, I'm expecting consequences for the entire US tech sector, not just the defence sector.
>no country will want to buy F16s
US needs to diversify and have an industrial policy. It also needs to rethink capitalism. Maybe new capitalism with US characteristics and more humanism thrown in. As to the defense industry it needs to shrink and be part of the industrial policy, not depend on warmongering to exist. You can have peace and a defiance industry without wars.
A strong economy only exists with a strong democracy. Billionaires thought this administration would be good for them, but they are just as stupid as anyone.
Russia might buy some
> This is the end of an empire
Empires are not good.
> I am really amazed there are still almost half of the people able to twist reality to defend what is a direct attack against their own personal interests
Self-interest is a middle-class religion. I think that a lot of Americans think that what we are doing is morally wrong. I also think that the idea that everybody else is going to shun our military exports over ditching Ukraine is absolutely hilarious. Ukraine isn't paying for any of this, they don't even count as a customer. Everybody has been free at all times to buy from the UK, France, and Germany, and if they don't see the difference between themselves and Ukraine, they should make decisions about their futures accordingly.
I might remind them in passing that borrowing money from Germany to buy weapons from Germany was what brought Greece's economy down. Also I'd remind them, for what it's worth, that again they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia for unintelligible reasons.
> they're partnering with Germany or France or the UK to invade Russia
Can we stop this nonsense on both sides? Russia does not want to invade NATO countries, and for sure Germany, France and the UK do not want to invade Russia.
Britain is hawkish because they love continental powers fighting against each other and pulling the strings. They will not send their 50,000 soldiers to Moscow.
We will buy tge Dassault Rafale, thank you.
... and just like that, America cedes arms export leadership.
China will laugh all the way to the bank.
That also means no country will want to buy US (military) equipment.
airplanes funded by tax money are not a business for selling product
Not being troll-y or intentionally obtuse but I have to ask: when has The Military Industrial Complex acted in my / our best interest?
Sure there’s plenty about US policy and actions that have been normalized, but that doesn’t mean they should have been adopted. It doesn’t mean those things should persist without thought or challenge. Even going about that the wrong way is more productive
Yes, The System is fragile (as opposed to antifragile). But then let’s discuss that, not insist on the persistence of fragile-ness.
No one is using fighter jets in this war. Why? And everyone (who knows) knows this: The anti-air technology is too good to field a jet. It will just get shot down. so the Jets are now useless. so there’s no point in supporting useless jets. And no country is going to buy useless jets. But go on and make this political and not about some physical reality of our world.
Jets are massively used in this war-- to launch glide bombs and as roving defense against cruise missile threats. Ukraine is mostly doing the latter.
Yes, the amount of direct CAS and amount of direct air to air engagement is low.
Making an argument that "everyone knows" something without a basic effort to inform yourself is not great.
These jets are being used to shoot down the drones that Russia uses to destroy residential homes and civilian infrastructure.
Their loss will be felt both in lives, and in the cold of winter when homes are unheated.
That is extremely misguided take.
Fighter jets are extremely valuable, they are not a magic weapon though, but just one of the very important tool for the military to have.
They are absolutely using 'fighter jets' for standoff munitions delivery. You probably have heard of Storm Shadow and JDAM-ER.
Even if this wasn't the case, they would still not be useless in that the firearms in your house aren't useless if you aren't actively shooting a home invader.
Photos of a Mirage fighter jet shooting down a Russian Kh-101 cruise missile over Ukraine, published two days ago by the Ukrainian General Staff: https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1898105929364648055
[flagged]
[flagged]
As a U.S. citizen, I don’t want to “bend the knee”. I want to maintain the Pax Americana that keeps us rich and safe. Ceding global leadership to Russia and China and Europe is a myopic move.
How is global leadership being ceded to either Russia or China? That would only happen if European countries prefer building economic and strategic ties with China over the US. If that happened it would mostly be revealing the true colors of Europe, choosing to side with a dictatorship and system that has killed tens of millions. As for Europe itself, I doubt Europe will be able to lead anything given its economic condition. These changes essentially just force people to resolve this one conflict.
Europe will prepare for a future independent of the US, as they have proven to be an unreliable and fickle ally. This breaks the western blocks global dominance, as it is now no longer aligned, breaking into two (or more) blocks. As a result, the US loses much of their global influence.
> newly invented security guarantees
This just isn't true. He had been publicly stating that there needed to be security guarantees for weeks before the meeting. Also, perhaps if Ukraine had been involved in the prior "peace talks" he would have had an opportunity to state this directly to the US administration.
The US hasn’t been isolationist since WW2, quite the opposite once we were relatively unscathed by the conflict and rose to the worlds #1 military superpower.
It seems to me Trump is following the logic that the current danger to the US is China, not Russia. Approaching Russia may be a strategy to ensure China and Russia (and maybe all BRICS) are not aligned against the US. He probably believes that Europe is not a threat, and won't become one even when the US behave in ways that go against its interests (Which I would say is correct).
I have to say that while that world view may be misguided, and certainly is not a worldview Europeans would agree with, it is nonetheless a rational view, and is almost certainly correct in that Russia alone is not a serious threat to the US, and won't be in the medium term at least (it can barely win in Ukraine, to think it could win against NATO and then go on to take the US is just delusional).
There is absolutely no rational reason for the US to align itself with Russia at the cost of its relationship with Europe.
This is totally detached from reality.
After Zelenskyy came to the White House with the intention of running the already-decided deal to the ground with some newly invented security guarantees not talked about previously, heavily expecting US to bend the knee to him is just out of place.
This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine? Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
The US hasn't been remotely isolationist since at least the start of the 20th century. Once industrialization made the world small, isolationism became a myth. It's just a phrase used by people who want to shirk their duty.
> This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine?
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting. The in person meeting, requested by Zelensky, was supposed to be a photo op. But he unwisely tried to steer it into a different direction and ended up losing the whole thing.
> Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
Yes that’s traditionally what happens to the losers in a conflict. Ukraine does not have the money, guns, or soldiers to win this thing, doublely so without the USA.
Their end state in this is not going to be some pre war border as a NATO state. It’ll be losing land, losing mineral rights, and at best third party non-NATO peacekeepers manning a DMZ.
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting
False. No such agreement existed.
https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-has-agreed-on-terms-of-...
Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
Vague platitudes are not a security guarantee.
> Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
Did you even read your own link?
>> Ukraine has agreed on the terms of a minerals deal with the United States and could sign it as early as Friday on a trip to Washington by President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official said.
And then later on:
>> The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees. Told them he'd sign in in the USA. Then after he got here, he demanded additional things that were not part of the already agreed upon deal.
Did you even read your own link?
Yes, and I even directly quoted it for you.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees.
Absolutely false, as has been explained to you already. Stop with the disinformation.
The US made vague statements about a security guarantee with nothing specific. That's not what Zelenski was open to.
The disinformation is you claiming that they had not reached an agreement that does not include explicit security guarantees.
That’s never been disputed by Ukraine and there are multiple US sources claiming that they had come to that agreement. The only formality was actually signing it and Zelensky said he wanted to do it at the Whitehouse.
Otherwise why was he in the USA? One doesn’t fly halfway around the world for a photo op if there’s no deal in place. And there’s no record of the USA ever offering explicit security guarantees. Only the opposite.
Zelensky said ahead of time he wound sign it. The entire point of him visiting was to sign it. He insisted on coming in person to do it even though the White House said it wasn’t necessary.
What actually likely happened is that Democrats who met with Zelensky right before the meeting with Trump and Vance, like Chris Murphy, pressured or convinced Zelensky to reject the deal. This is disputed by the Democrats. So maybe it was something else - like simply a last minute impulsive choice by Zelensky. Either way it was unexpected that he would change his mind and would lead the event in a different direction.
As for “no agreed benefit” - the benefit was continued US support in the short term until a peace is negotiated. After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion. European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants. But for American taxpayers this is a huge expense adding to the dangers of a debt spiral.
Your “actually likely” take lasted exactly two sentences before you admit it wasn’t actually likely. You might want to reconsider your assumption that this was decided by the person with the least agency, especially when undisciplined revenge and extortion are well-established patterns by the guy who made the attack. He’s had a personal grudge since the events of his impeachment so the most parsimonious explanation is that this is exactly what it looks like.
As for “no agreed benefit” - the benefit was continued US support in the short term until a peace is negotiated.
False:
Ukraine had asked for security guarantees from the US as part of any agreement.
The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
"There is a general clause that says America will invest in a stable and prosperous sovereign Ukraine, that it works for a lasting peace, and that America supports efforts to guarantee security."
There was no "deal". There was a contract where Ukraine would sign over minerals with nothing but vague platitudes. Ukraine has already been through that with Russia and denuclearization.
Source: https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-has-agreed-on-terms-of-...
After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion.
False:
To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
Source: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/r...
European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants.
False:
Since the start of the war, the EU and our Member States have made available close to $145 billion in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance, of which 65% have been provided as grants or in-kind support and 35% in the form of highly concessional loans.*
Source: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america...
But for American taxpayers this is a huge expense
False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
You are simply repeating disinformation.
I don’t have time to reply to all your points, so I’ll just pick a couple.
> False: > To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
There’s a lot of editorialization here. But Russia was provoked. By NATO expansionism as well as the illegal coup in 2014 in Ukraine, which basically denied voting rights for the half of Ukraine that supported relations with Russia.
As for the numbers - your numbers are misleading because they’re only about part of the what’s been set aside overall, which is indeed around 200 billion.
> False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
It’s not a drop in the bucket. It is a huge amount to anyone. It can be used in many other ways. They aren’t just “old armaments” - a lot of this equipment is still in service, usable in war, and at least can be sold to generate income and help taxpayers or pay off debt. Also Ukraine is not an ally.
There’s a lot of editorialization here.
No, there isn't.
But Russia was provoked. By NATO expansionism
NATO is a purely defensive pact. This propaganda that you're spewing is nonsensical, and directly from Putin's mouth.
maybe watch some real news not only Fjox or X. I think they filtered out reality for your account.
yes that's the general view of the minority of the US, that think there's anything to negotiate with criminals
Even Reagan had the right mind in this aspect
> end of an empire
Imperialism is not good, so this is welcome.
A broken arm is not good, but that doesn’t mean cancer is welcome.
Being an Empire guarantees cancer sooner or later
I'm sure Greenland, Panama, and Gaza will be relieved to hear that.
Yes?
Actually we just want the war in Ukraine to end. Hope that helps.
There's a lot of bloviating from the chattering class about cozying up to Russia, but I've yet to hear a cogent alternative. And no, I don't think "endlessly funding Ukraine to a forever stalemate" qualifies.
The Ukrainians want this war to end, too. The difference is that they want to survive as a nation, so how the war ends matters.
Plus if Russia wins, its appetite will only grow, and another war is just a matter of time.
Yep, that all sounds great. Now what's your plan for preventing Russia from winning?
The plan so far has not worked.
It may surprise you but Russia is not winning. It has been exhausting itself for no measurable benefit, at the cost for US taxpayers of roughly a coffee per day.
Up to now, Ukraine has never received the support it would need to win, just enough not to lose. Weapons deliveries been too little, too late, making the war longer and bloodier than it needs to be. In the meantime domestic production has increased to the point Ukraine covers 30% of its needs.
Russia has lost other wars, it can and should lose this one.
How many more billions do we need to send to ensure Russia loses? Any how many more years will it take?
And what does "loss" even look like? Are you genuinely proposing they will simply pack up and head home from all captured territory?
> How many more billions do we need to send to ensure Russia loses? Any how many more years will it take?
You have to compare with how much will it cost if the war continues to grow in scale or intensity. Russia is dedicating more and more resources to its war machine. And I have no reason to think it will stop if Ukraine. In 2022 Putin already said he wanted NATO back to 1991, IOW he wants Eastern Europe defenseless.
Russia's economy is just the size of Spain or Italy: not negligible, but not formidable either. Europe should do more, much more, if only for its own sake.
> And what does "loss" even look like? Are you genuinely proposing they will simply pack up and head home from all captured territory?
Territorial issues are somewhat secondary. What matters is that the defeat is clear and Russia's leaders discouraged from attempting to go to war again. It happened to Russia against Japan in 1905, and to the USSR in Afghanistan. It can happen again.
just because it hasnt worked so far doesnt mean it won't work. the time horizon matters. is russia gonna give up in 10 years? this is a bad plan. in 1 year? maybe not so much.
That's not a plan. That's a wish. Wars aren't won on wishes.
its not. plenty of OSINT evidence that this is inevitable. YOUR not-plan has no evidence going for it.
It's inevitable that if Ukraine has no funding or soldiers to continue this war, then it will end. I don't think that is being questioned.
why do you want the war to end? is it just a moral calculus of lives lost? how can you be sure that ukraine capitulating to russia will lead to less lives lost than one more year of war? 100,000-600,000 people died in the occupation of iraq, why do you think that a russian occupation of Ukraine will be less bloody?
I don't think it is wise or ethical to spend billions of dollars prolonging a forever-war thousands of miles away.
I also don't think it's wise or rational to presume that every aggressive action necessarily means that the aggressor is Hitler or bent on world domination. Or even that opposing them by sending resources to their enemy is the most effective way to stop it.
For the US, this is an extremely cheap [1] way to counter Russia. Ukraine is doing 99% of the work. We give them money which they immediately give back to us to buy hardware. Or we give mothballed hardware slated for destruction. Most prefer this to a future with dead Americans and US boots on the ground in Europe when NATO countries are invaded by Russia, emboldened by a world that gave up on Ukraine.
[1] as a percentage of the US$850,000,000,000 _annual_ Pentagon budget
Hold the line, stop the oil tankers.
Who stops them? Ideally we'd do this without starting WW3.
ideally we can stop hitler without starting wwwii. just give him a bit more of Czechoslovakia bro, this time its enough, bro. i promise.
If only we had spent billions for decades of fighting in Czechoslovakia. Fair point.
if only france and spain had decided to be neutral in the us war of independence we wouldnt be here hearing your navel gazing opinion.
If Ukraine stops the fight they cease to be a sovereign nation. If Russia stops they loose face. The former is existential, the latter is not. Why is this so hard to understand?
Any ceasefire or peace without security guarantees will be used by Russia to rearm and try again in a few years time. It will be a continuation of the conflict that started in 2014. That, too, isn't hard to understand.
I guess we're on the hook to fund a stalemate indefinitely then?
What's your plan for beating Russia? Ideally without starting WW3.
According to many economists we were already on a very good way to beating them (ruining them) with existing sanctions alone.
Winning the attrition war. They have most likely less than a year left before their economy crumbles. 21% interest rates, capital controls, official 10% inflation, annihilated non military sectors (fe cars), forcing their banks to give loans to anything military adjacent while forbidding them to call them in.......
I am sure the Europeans would be willing to shoulder more of the cost but the US has been cutting Ukraine off from intelligence sources and now also support. There is no cost argument for that.
Also do you really think that these decisions will not cost the US in lost sales, reassurances for everything because of lost trust....
Giving Ukraine all the weapons it needed and asked for, instead of destroying them soon, would be a good start. Also, you know, not forbidding Ukraine to use its long-range drones to damage Russia's oil industry would also be helpful. This is to get started. I can continue.
You want the war to end so that Russians can do what they did to Bucha a thousand more times!
You want the war to end so that Poland, Japan, Taiwan and Australia no longer trust that the US will help them and develop their own nuclear weapons!
It is absolutely insane that anyone thinks giving nukes to Taiwan is a good idea.
Other nations have adjacency.
Taiwan makes some of the most complex devices humans have ever constructed! They can figure out the almost 100 year old technology to make a gun bomb nuke.
US prevented Taiwan from developing nukes in the first place.
If you think Taiwan shouldn't cease to exist, how else can you guarantee that? It's either nukes or US protection and nobody trusts the Americans anymore.
I want the war to end because I have no preferable alternative.
And you, too, have failed to present one. Is funding a never-ending stalemate indefinitely the only option?
so your alternative of inaction involves a likely outcome of raping and murdering thousands of civilians in the name of peace for thousands of soldiers.
Fantastic.
I'm sure they'll still accept your personal donations, but no, I don't think spending billions to ostensibly prolong a forever-war thousands of miles away is even necessarily a good or ethical thing.
You know, you all talk about “spending” and “giving”. All that money goes back to the US and funds jobs in the US.
the us can do plenty of things without spending billions of dollars that are short of this, and yes, i have personally donated to the Ukrainian effort.
An obvious alternative is to increase support to Ukraine to give them what they need to expel Russia. The good old USA has the resources to do that but Republicans have blocked increasing aid at the orders of Donald Trump for years now. And now that he is in power he is finally blocking it altogether.
Because conflict ended for good when crimea was annexed...
Fair point. If only we had stretched that over decades and spent billions of dollars. I guess it could have been a lot more expensive?
Still waiting on the alternative plan.
Is your plan really to just let Russia have new territory whenever they want it? Why do you think this would save money or lives?
You must be being deliberately obtuse at this stage. He's not saying the Crimea incursion should have been fought again more. He's saying that allowing the annexation of Crimea to be relatively peacful didn't prevent the subsequent imvasion of Ukraine, and as such, stopping the war now and allowing Russia to keep the gains it has made may lead to a short-term peace, but will likely not prevent another war in the future.
Given Putin's stated wishes, this will only stop if Russia is unable to make such moves (for whatever reason) or states at risk of invasion are defended such that it's strategically stupid for Russia to even try.
We call you when Putin comes for Alaska.
I believe a big crux is in definition of "war ended".
You (and Donald Trump) seem to be using "Ukraine and Russia stop shooting at each other right now", while Ukraine operates more under "Russia stops shooting at us for the foreseeable future, 20 years at least." Russia has previously broken a number of ceasefires and written agreements (including the infamous Budapest memorandum) and so Ukraine is not super trusting to agreements not backed by anything.
What Ukraine will accept is entirely dependent on how much funding they will get from foreign powers to continue their war effort.
I've had a lot of responses to my comment, yet I've seen no alternative ideas presented that will result in a different outcome. What is your plan for getting Russia to lose this war?
Why just this war? What's Israel's cogent plan?
I'm not sure we should be funding that, either.
You are “not sure”?
I don't want to see Ukrainian genocide by Russia, hope that help
I don't think any of us do. And they'll take your donations either way, so I don't think that's in question.
What's your plan that results in Russia giving up the territory they've claimed and heading home?
I would rather not have to live through an emboldened and desperate autocracy rolling over Europe and opening up the very real possibility of a third world war.
and while we're here, since the US is ostensibly going isolationist, maybe they should stop telling the Ukrainians they need to submit to subjugation.
If Russia is powerful enough to take over Europe, how can Ukraine possibly win?
I think the story is Russia becomes powerful enough to threaten Europe, one state at a time.
Ukraine has an amazing job, but they wouldn't have been able to do even that without convincing others that it was in their best interest to fund the war. That's been clear from the beginning.
The war is the genocide. Putin’s invasion would have killed thousands, maybe tens of thousands and been over in a week. Western involvement changed that into the deaths of hundreds of thousands. What more effective means of self-genocide could Europe conceive? Germany cannot exactly round up a whole class of their own for slaughter again in their current political environment. The West (England, Germany, France, etc) caused WWI and WWII not Russia. Now we (America) should trust their vision to avoid WWIII? We should be clear who the problem is and stay out of it.
This is such incredibly twisted logic. I would have honestly been aghast to see this on HN a few years ago, but now the site seems nearly as infected as Facebook or X with this.
Ukraine remembers this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
For Ukraine to continue existing, the russians have to be driven out. Otherwise the genocide will continue. The genocide caused by russians, caused by russians invading Ukraine, caused by russians stealing Ukraine's children.
In america's right wing trump followers, there is utter, sociopathic, monstrous indifference to Ukraine's suffering.
So I'll ask you, personally: If the neighbouring state or country decided to invade and take over an area of your state, and you were told "you've been resisting too long, give in already and give up your fight", would you lay down and welcome the invaders you've been fighting? If you knew that the invaders were stealing children, and murdering whole towns?
You should not conflate Stalin with Russia. The socialists and communists were terrible for everyone everywhere they went…
I’m not blaming Ukrainians for fighting. I am saying it is evil to give Ukraine only enough to suffer. However Europe again has socialists in power and it again means death for Ukrainians.
As opposed to Russians in power which means death for Ukrainians?
If the West had just let Mr Hitler do what he wanted, so many deaths would have been avoided.
If Woodrow Wilson hadn't drawn Europe's borders to cause conflict many deaths could have been avoided.
The US didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor.
FDR bending the Neutrality Act to support France and Britain is an important part of WW2 history - he was doing it before the invasion of Poland.
It's exactly what the Ukrainians are asking for - not troops, just weapons.
I find some of the comments I’ve read today in this thread somewhat enlightening - there is intelligent conversation about the capabilities of the American hardware and its software.
The sophistication of the F-35 cannot be debated. But the rest of the world doesn’t trust the US anymore, so it doesn’t matter how good it is - people would gladly explore a worse product because they see it as lower risk.
That’s the reality of where America is at the moment. There are many Americans on Hacker News (if not the majority) and naturally the merits of the product that America produces are being discussed, and its superiority is front and center.
This viewpoint is not relevant to the rest of the world. We don’t want the US’ stuff anymore and the only thing that can save that relationship is full software control. If America wants to make sales it needs to adjust to that expectation, or buyers are going elsewhere.
The argument is missing the forest for the trees - the relationship is more important than the product itself. The sooner that is acknowledged the more likely a political course correction is possible. Otherwise, sure, you might see a few short term F-35 sales conclude. But the purchasing will stop as soon as it can.
The F35 was an enormously expensive program only possible by increasing the production run through sales to partners/allies. It was predicated on a defense model currently burning down.
>and its superiority is front and center.
The vast majority of the comments I am reading on this site are not stating this. The vast majority, even the Americans, are agreeing that this is a bad decision. Unsure where you got this from.
I think he is referring to the F-35 only here. On military discussion forums it is the consensus that the F-35 is superior to everything else out there with the only exception being that the F-22 has superior air to air combat capabilities.
Dollar for dollar is the f35 or a drone superior?
“A drone” could mean literally anything from a twenty dollar quadcopter to the next generation $300M NGAD system.
There is currently no drone that can replace everything the F-35 does. There might be one in the future, and it will likely be the most expensive aircraft ever made (see the two NGAD programs' unmanned components)
Specifically the F-35, as that phrasing is ambiguous within the context I wrote it.
It's only been 2 months. America in free fall.
If the rest of the world doesn’t trust us in relation to this conflict it should be because we backed a coup of Ukraine’s democratically elected government and baited Russia into a proxy war.
Yes because only the USA has agency in this world. Russia didn't choose to invade and Ukrainians didn't choose to defend themselves. As someone from Europe this lack of perspective you showing here is exactly why we are tired of the US atm.
I’d say you lack perspective, this war started in 2014 not when Russia crossed the border. Russia’s agency isn’t going to extend to ignoring existential threats.
Russia crossed the border in 2014, they just lied about it then.
russia has very low bar for "existential threats". in this case it was "neighbors living better than we do"
And now you're back-tracking on it so yes, US is extremely unreliable as an ally. I mean nobody is surprised you had some ulterior motive and undermined your geo-political enemies. It's the abandonment of those you supported that hurts US image.
Sweden will reportedly be supplying Ukraine with Saab-built Gripen fighters.[1][2] Maybe. Apparently Sweden has been holding off on transfer of 14 Gripens while Ukraine was learning to use and service F-16s.
The Gripen has advantages for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft, with lower maintenance demands and lower operating cost. It can operate from very basic airstrips and roads. Saab boasts about this.[3] Their pitch mentions that servicing an aircraft between missions requires just one trained tech assisted by five other workers. The USAF likes to operate from big, well-equipped, secure air bases, and US aircraft tend to be designed for that environment.
The US has, in the past, tried to discourage other countries from buying the Gripen, to protect US manufacturers. That sales advantage just disappeared.
[1] https://min.news/en/military/a409faa4bc530b328f75ed6ccff23b7...
[2] https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/04/saab-ceo-pushes-for-s...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E
Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.
I thought the US lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Am I misunderstanding something in your post?
The comments in this thread freak me out. Either the world's media has brainwashed the population into believing America is failing and the 'right' is evil/dumb, or I'm totally delussioned (as an American) for seeing mostly good in what the current administration is doing. Both are terrifying.
So in the article, they talk about the AN/ALQ-131 jammer. It needs to be updated by the US, to keep up with the Russia counter measures, that's what's stopping. At least the F-16 donated by Denmark will most likely have pylons from Terma (ECIPS), which should work with the CJS from Leonardo (ECIPS/CJS).
Shouldn't be to hard for Europe to make the required pylons for the planes who don't have the ECIPS and for those that do, some of them might already have CJS installed.
It's a problem for sure, but it's a manageable one.
Well it's always good to be specific, but I think it was the only thing that the US did for the F-16, wasn't it? They didn't exactly support sending planes in the first place. And it's not gonna be the last wrench the US will throw into Ukraine's (and Europe's) gears. It all piles up.
And the article itself appears to be making some logical leaps. It says it's getting its information from a Forbes article, but the information in the Forbes article is simply this[1]:
> But the Russian air force could sidestep the jamming by reprogramming their radars to operate at slightly different frequencies. Under Biden, the USAF team might’ve kept pace with Russian adaptation by constantly adjusting the AN/ALQ-131s own frequencies. Under Trump, Ukrainian airmen are stuck with pods whose programming may soon be out of date.
Some people were asked why this got flagged, by I think there's some justification for that given the fact that it's a misleading headline for an article editorializing another article, and that most people here used it as a jumping off point to talk about politics and not what was actually being discussed.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-t...
When totalitarian governments all start applauding what you're doing, using what you're doing as a distraction from a bad domestic situation as well as a justification for their dictatorships, you should know that something is totally screwed up.
Yes, I'm talking about the totalitarian governments of China and Russia.
To be fair to China, even they are "appalled" by what Trump is doing to cause chaos with Europe and to abandon Ukraine by holding talks about Ukraine without Ukraine:
https://news.liga.net/en/politics/news/china-appalled-by-tru...
China isn't actually appalled but they are trying to slip into America's spot in the world and they will likely do so successfully.
It almost looks like China doesn't want but US somehow is dragging it towards that point.
China has been mostly concerned about economic links with other countries and it has few oversea bases comparing to any of the other 4 big dogs.
It doesn't have the mindset to be a region police, let alone a world one.
China doesn't want to be the world police. It just wants the economic benefits of being the US without the security liabilities.
Yup that's the idea. It's not going to run away from that police liability very soon. Probably in 5-10 years I think. Actually already happening right now in Myanmar.
Meh.
Let's all be honest here. At the end of the day, what China wants is for everyone to shut the F up and buy a big screen TV.
Preferably on credit.
Anything that moves the world towards that goal will receive China's tacit support. Trump's moves are seen to move the world away from that goal, so we're seeing some signs of discomfort coming from China.
But believe me, it ain't because they're concerned about Ukraine or freedom or "ideals". Or even because they do or do not want to be world police.
We can't think about their goals in Western terms because the fundamentals of the thinking are just completely different.
I view it as China valuing stability. They want to control their interests, but countries like Russia or the post-Trump U.S. make long-term planning hard because you can’t assume rational decisions by the other major players.
They say they're appalled so as to be able to take up opportunities left by the fleeing Americans in Europe.
China doesn't care about Ukraine but they care about continuing to sell to Europe a lot.
Ah yes, the only country in the world whose array of official foreign policies includes a "no limits partnership" with russia.
The statement of the named Chinese official is either a psyop, or he is, in the parlance of intelligence agencies, "going native". I'm leaning towards the former hypothesis.
> The statement of the named Chinese official is either a psyop
Or more likley China wants to sell to people, and thats hard if they are in a trade war, and spending money on a crash re-militarisation drive.
It also serves China well to be on the side of the EU as they can mop up some of the trade thats being destroyed by the USA.
How about the ‘totalitarian’ governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar — do they get a pass? What about NATO member and EU hopeful Turkey? Has India joined the ‘Evil Club’ yet? Is Israel’s treatment of Arabs a shining example of democracy in action?
For many Westerners, ‘totalitarian’ just means ‘a country that has something we want but won’t give it up for free.’ If you're useful to the right people, you can treat women as second-class citizens or violently repress minorities—no problem, business as usual.
Maybe get off your high horse and admit that moral outrage tends to be selective.
20% of Israel citizenship is Arab, they get equal rights. Parliamentary representatives etc. they even get affirmative action in getting higher education. Is it perfect? No Half the country is fighting the other half to keep us a western democracy. But every time ignorants post half baked opinions and paint us as pure evil, more ppl here say, fuck it.
Much like how Americans can be good people under asinine leadership, Israel ends up criticized for the actions taken by their government.
If Israel wanted a goody-two-shoes relationship with their neighbors then they should have considered that when they annexed the Golan Heights.
I have Israeli friends across the spectrum (except maybe ultra-orthodox, but including Ukrainian/Russian olim). I also have friends from Lebanon (not even Arabs). They all share different stories, many of them very ugly ones, — and not just about Palestinians. And many of them are Jewish and critical of Jewish policies.
I know plenty of Israelis who are genuinely trying, and there are many of liberal-minded people with their conscience absolutely in the right place. I don't want to badmouth any of them.
My point is — if the same level of "trying" happened elsewhere (like in Xinjiang), Americans and Europeans would instantly brand it the worst kind of totalitarianism.
It's astonishing how the same first-rank predators who've been devouring the world for 500 years now posture as moral messiahs. And that's coming from me — one of them.
Don't let anecdotes shape your perception of reality. I have a feeling you're not familiar enough with the details.
Parent is correct. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs who generally enjoy equal rights. They are members of Knesset, they are judges, they are in tech, they are in academia. Some of them serve in the IDF (though that's an area that can still use improvement).
It's as far from totalitarianism as can be. And there's plenty of that in the world your Americans and Europeans let slide when it's in their interest. Most of the world is not free and democratic: https://freedomhouse.org/country/israel
"Jewish policies"? What's that?
Ask your friends from Lebanon what happened to the Christian majority that used to exist in that country? Or what happened to the Jews that used to live there?
> Ask your friends from Lebanon what happened to the Christian majority that used to exist in that country
War my friend, war.
My Lebanese friends are Armenian Gregorians, so I tend to consider their perspective relatively impartial — though, as you rightly noted, it remains anecdotal.
As for 'Jewish policies', there are, of course, issues around settlers, the West Bank, and Gaza. My own view on Gaza doesn't favour any particular side - it's a deeply complex and painful topic, and I recognise the trauma is still fresh. But I was referring to a different angle. Many of my Israeli friends are deeply frustrated by the influence of the ultra-Orthodox community and the state policies shaped by that influence - whether it's on women's rights, voting rights for Israeli Arabs, or broader social norms.
It's increasingly concerning given the explosive proportional growth of this community, which is on track to represent a third of Israel's population within a few decades.
And yet, the topic of the ultra-Orthodox and their influence is exceedingly rare in the West. I wouldn’t have been aware of it myself if I hadn’t had a personal experience. Years ago, a girl who had run away - literally - from a Hasidic community arrived in the UK, desperately looking for a way to stay. She was applying for jobs, including a position I had open. Meanwhile, she was staying with some soft-hearted Jewish family, working as a nanny for their kids. I still remember her eyes and the dedication — and desperation — in her voice.
My CTO at the time, an Israeli ex-IDF intelligence guy, soft-pushed me to hire her, even though she was absolutely unqualified. He told me, 'These people have enough resolve to become anything.' I didn’t budge. But I’ve never forgotten that experience.
These same people invoking the concept of totalitarianism to push their agenda are totally silent on the US allying with Al Queda in Syria. The concept that we have moral standards for foreign policy friends or enemies is a joke.
How aboutism, is that a variation on whataboutism?
I brought both so you wouldn’t have to stress over which one to deflect with.
No, it is a variation of exposing hypocrites.
Whataboutism is a legitimate rhetorical tactic. Without it we would just be exploring hegemonic (and hypocritical) talking points, forever.
you are talking about (edit almost) a third of the entire human population, as if you know better. Reality says - random armchair Western Educated Individual Rich and Democratic does not rule the day for a third of humanity by claiming some political imperative.
More reality - the Muslim world is organized and very wealthy in spots. By confrontational and arrogant (see above) posturing and actions by Westerns, it drives power alliances to the Muslim world. So then there is one third of the actual population of the entire world, embracing the Muslim world economically and politically.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the backdrop economically for all parties is substantially about Oil and Gas. In the USA, the Oil and Gas interests have gained the upper hand, and they know very well how to apply it. Oil and Gas industry has all the capital and all the ambition to expand, fortify and entrench for the next multiple decades. It is rarely mentioned in the provocative and divisive social "news" that fills the media in the West each day.
The combined population of China and Russia is less than a fifth of the world (15-16 bn vs 80+ bn). Edit: should be 1.5-1.6 bn vs 8 bn.
I'm only discussing Trump's behaviour and its effect on totalitarian governments, I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the rest of what you wrote.
I think the recent series of Trump's actions against Ukraine have failed to send a message to totalitarian governments that matches his own words. This has nothing to do with how much of the population Trump rules.
please read this page:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/
From your own website;
China: 1,419,320,000
Russia: 144,820,000
World: 8,005,176,000
Russia + China = ~1.56 billion
(Russia + China) / World = 0.195 aka 20% or 1/5 of the world population
Parent just forgot a decimal separator I think.
I'm glad that this discussion finally takes place, even though the discussion is of course flagged.
You can flag here, but the mainstream press has picked up the issue:
"Can the US switch off Europe’s weapons?"
https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...
"Such is the concern that debate has turned to whether the US maintains secret so-called kill switches that would immobilise aircraft and weapons systems. While never proven, Richard Aboulafia, managing director at consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, said: “If you postulate the existence of something that can be done with a little bit of software code, it exists.”
In practice, it may not even matter because of how already reliant advanced combat aircraft and other sophisticated weapons — such as anti-missile systems, advanced drones and early warning aircraft — are on US spare parts and software updates."
There you go, finally mainstream press and politicians are mentioning the kill switch.
Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.
Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer.
Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars.
So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.
Huge part of F35 (like the engine) is made in EU/UK. We could "kill switch" USA as well.
https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...
It’s false to say that all F-35 engines are made in the same country.
Iran is still flying F14s.
That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.
With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.
> I don't see the strategic benefit.
Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.
Yeah, not delivering additional aid for free is one thing.
But retracting support is the nuclear option.
Figuratively, because you can probably one do it once, so you better pick a good reason for doing it.
And literally, because small European countries do now have to consider nukes.
Not just small European countries, but all European countries that do not have their own nukes, which is all except France. The issue is, they’ll have to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty for that (except for the UK, I think), and once an otherwise respected country does that, the floodgates would be open in the world. The other problem is that such a decision would be very divisive in the European country’s electorate, and therefore highly problematic on its domestic political front. This is simply not likely to happen.
A more realistic outcome is that French nukes will be stationed in other European countries. But France is also not willing to give up exclusive control over those nukes, and the next French government could very well be far-right, and thus become as unreliable as the current US government. It’s a difficult situation.
> small European countries do now have to consider nukes
It wouldn't be all that surprising to see Poland and Finland doing atmospheric tests in the next few months. Given that Ukraine gave up their weapons for a totally vacuous security guarantee it would make sense for them to build bombs too. 2025 could be the year of global nuclear proliferation.
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to restart atmospheric testing. If you want a subsurface test to be public knowledge, there's a pretty good track record of how to do that: invite the press. Pakistan, North Korea, India & others can serve as a good example.
In fact, while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test', it seems that only Israel is capable of doing it. That is an argument from the absence of evidence unfortunately.
> while most nuclear powers have dabbled in the idea of 'how could we conceal a nuclear test'
Given the sensitivity of global seismometers, I don't think this is physically possible.
Maybe you could test one on the far side of the moon? :)
The point of an atmospheric test wouldn't be to merely say "we have capability" it would be to say "we have capability and we're absolutely not afraid to use it, no matter what the cost." The idea is to demonstrate overwhelming strength and resolve, such that the opponent doesn't dare attack, not to escalate slowly.
I just read here a few days ago how very dependent on regular US maintenance the British nuclear weapons are.
"US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt (theguardian.com)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299011
The article is written to give the reader the impression only the US can reprogram the jamming system and the comments seem to mostly be taking it at face value.
In the very Forbes article the OP's article cites it links to info about this F-16 reprogramming effort[1], showing it was collaboration between the US/Norway/Denmark and that the US electronic warfare team wasn't familiar with the system, yet within two weeks they say they managed to reprogram them to meet the initial deadline.
> The 68th EWS assembled a dedicated team comprised of a mixture of seasoned experts and bright, young engineers to approach the reprograming challenge. Their first task was to understand the unfamiliar EW system and how to reprogram it.
> Relying on data provided by Denmark and Norway, then adapting new processes and approaches to the usual process, the team was able to understand the system and start their work.
> After understanding the system, the 68th EWS deviated again from normal methods and sent its members overseas to a partner-nation lab to collaboratively develop and test the system alongside coalition teammates.
[1] https://www.dvidshub.net/news/479401/dominate-spectrum-350th...
[flagged]
> hysterical leftists
How so? As an European and quite pro-US for a long time, i have turned quite sharply against, for example, buying US weapons.
We would love to see Europe develop a military spine for once, I’m excited to see how long it takes before they come crawling back under the wing of the US.
> come crawling back
It was Trump servered the relationship.
Also, who wants to make deals with someone who can't be trusted to follow through. What's the point? Would you sign a 10 year deal with someone who keeps ripping it up and changing their mind every 3 weeks? What's the point?
Build trust for a hundred years. Then flush it down the drain in two months.
Not even two weeks
[flagged]
This belief is flat out wrong and is completely oblivious to the current geopolitical landscape. US is likely to get sanctioned by its prior allies in the near future and you need to wake up.
[flagged]
I think losing the European market will do a lot of harm to the US, especially their precious tech giants, plus they'll lose creditors. The $$$ won't be what it used to be, and once that falls...
But the whole point of Musk and Thiel is for the USA to lose its power. You can't coerce large institutions, but you can do that with small ones, so they want decentralization, small zones. There they can buy power, and do whatever they please. For this, the federal USA has to be upended.
> The US is an actual sovereign state, with democratic leaders, acting on behalf of their constituencies.
At no point in history has this ever been less true.
What are you implying? We had an election. People voted. What am I missing?
Did you vote for alienating all your allies?
Increase tariffs even more on allies than your supposed enemies?
Massively increasing cost of living in US?
Sending European and South Korean defense stocks through the roof while tanking US defense stocks?
Eliminating free travel through Canada to Alaska?
Becoming the laughing stock of every stand up show around the globe?
Yes, I know you voted for Trump.
Do you think you got what voted for?
But Democrats are mad, and that seems to be the #1 priority for a lot of people.
That been said. Historically US got strong by screwing over its allies. For example to the UK during the second World War.
What specifically are you referring to during the WW2? I'm sure it wasn't always black and white, but I think in general the US and western Europe were fairly good allies.
Personally I think the reason the US got strong, especially economically, is because of stability, rule of law, global trade and economy of scale due to large enough population. Not because of specific incidents of screwing someone.
I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII. Then every country in Europe, Russia was in shambles from the war. Japan got its expansionist hopes crushed by two atomic bombs, US’ new “don’t fuck we me I’ve got a delete everything button”.
Every other country was either recovering from being a colony, or not as far along industrially as US
>> I view it as US got strong by being late to WWII.
This is the wrong view. The US got strong because it was able to convert its considerable industrial might to wartime footing within a very short timespan (which was frankly an incredible undertaking), and also because its geographic isolation allowed it to focus almost fully on offense.
> Personally I think the reason the US got strong, especially economically, is because of stability, rule of law, global trade and economy of scale due to large enough population. Not because of specific incidents of screwing someone.
WWII has had free reign to screw with dozens of countries since the end of WWII. And they did. But it wasn’t your[1] country so then it doesn’t count. Which is high school clique logic.
[1] Except if you were a politically active left-wing organizer post-WWII. Then the US and government-backed groups in Europe could have screwed with you through Operation Gladio, for example in Italy.[2]
[2] This is just an example. And I’m not terribly educated on the matter. I can’t learn about this by watching the tellie. So it takes more effort than the stupor that a slogan like 100 years of building trust hints at.
> US got strong by screwing over its allies
The biggest empire in the world paid for the US to re-tool its economy to produce arms for them. Later on the USA provided loans to continue that expansion.
Then Japan entered the war and it got personal.
Sure bretton-woods was a humiliation, but the Marshall plan was there to stop those humiliated allies from going communist.
If I was a defense minister in Western Europe right now I'd go looking at whatever the Dassault, Saab or other European based defense tech can provide. I'd also immediately halt any pilot training in the US. I can see shares in Raytheon, Lockheed, etc. taking losses in the next couple of quarters, I mean here we have a president that won't even spend money on its own defense tech for export, and is now actively shutting down that export market.
Today it's Ukraine and F35s, who and what will it be in a year? I suppose European governments are taking a long hard look at strategic dependencies on the US right now, like the whole economy running on top of Microsoft and Google and other US-made SaaS. If all of that went dark at once, I honestly don't know how some of the larger companies I know could keep operating. They all have fallbacks for critical infrastructure obviously but those are US-made, too...
In practice it goes both ways...
Lots of critical things for the US is made exclusively in Europe.
Lots of medicin that people rely on daily would be unavailable if EU/US trade broke down completely.
Adding to this:
About half of the US companies over a certain size run on ERP software from an European vendor. And it is not trivial at all to change that, even if they wanted to.
... and nearly all European corporations run US-made operating systems on some of their machines, many of which are critically important.
A real untangling of the US and European economies seem both impractical and really inefficient.
Aside from life-saving medicine, I was thinking that the un-availability (not 'available with tariffs' but 'we're not selling it to the US anymore') of Ozempic in the US might become a political problem, maybe more so than many other trade-war hits. Maybe it's easy to manufacture it locally but the time-gap until it's up and running might be too much to swallow...
US has Eli Lilly with a competing product (Tirzepatide)
Not going to happen. It would kill Novo Nordisk, which would be extremely bad for the Danish economy.
I think having Greenland annexed might also be a problem for the Danish. Europe might subsidize Novo Nordisk's losses, switch to distributing the meds all throughout Europe. And it seems the loss of such a society-transformative drug (and having millions of people gaining back all their lost weight would be a difficult/untenable political position for this administration. Just surprised not to see this much in the current news.
Sibling in thread says there's already an US alternative, anyway.
I don't think that would end up being a political problem. It'd just get spun as the evil communist Europeans trying to destroy America with their traitor liberal collaborators and used as justification for passing the FAT IS FREEDOM Act, which subsidizes butter production and eliminates capital gains tax and the library of Congress.
I think so far F16s not F35s. Though you wonder if say the UK could use F35s in Ukraine without Trump trying to turn something off.
The Danish air force is likely experiencing a buyers remorse about their batch of F35s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force
"27 in total ordered; 17 delivered as of January 2025; 11 in Denmark and 6 in Luke Air Force Base for training purposes as of January 2025"
Project is so far along that Denmark is probably stuck with them.
They can probably sell them to Russia or China a few years down the road at the current trajectory.
Russia wouldn't know what to do with them, given that they effectively do not develop weapon systems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. China probably has decent enough espionage they don't really need them, although it might make a nice political overture.
And to clarify, this was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment implying that the US will become friendly enough with the two big autocracies of the world so they will officially buy arms from US defense companies (in which case Denmark can pass those F-35s to them).
For the record, I dearly hope it doesn't come to this, but right now I'm not sure.
Russia can just ask US at this point.
If, and that is a big if, the US would allow Denmark or any other of their "allies" to suspend their commitments to the US arms industry.
"The weak are meat the strong do eat."
Yes I'm sure the Danes are wishing they had purchased their fifth generation fighters from China or Russia instead.
Alternatively they could have went with not 5 generation, but still extremely good Gripen.
It's electronic warfare capabilities have reportedly surprised Nato pilots in exercises before.
Extremely good is getting a bit over the top. The Gripen was designed in the 80's and it shows. It cannot really compare with something like the F-22 or 35 on anything substantial except cost. And if you're optimizing for cost, it becomes a question of how many pilots you're willing to lose to make it fulfill realistic roles.
Gripen has an American engine and uses American licensed missiles.
Can probably also use other missiles but I agree we need to get rid of all US dependencies and I guess a lot of effort is going on now to see what can be done to get rid of the American engine.
Maybe a cooperation with French (Safran) or British (Rolls Royce) industry could remove their reliance on the Americans? (Not suggesting overnight but over the next 2 - 7 years.)
Snecma Gripen would be pretty sick.
The best medium range missile usable from a Gripen is the Meteor, which is a European product. Of course the issue is that production isn’t high enough.
Good point I forgot about the meteor.
Presumably you can't brick an engine. The F-35 can be.
The Chinese and Russian would certainly have provided continued support if they were on the other end of a conflict, differently from the Evil Bad American Empire.
That money could have been used on drones or other weapons rather than buying expensive paper weights.
Czech people also discuss it (F35s ordered in 2024, delivery estimated in 2031-2035).
[flagged]
I sure hope any US invasion for Greenland is met with a significant NATO force, not just the Danish.
LOL? The EU against the US? At sea?
Realistically, is there anything the Danes could do, except protest?
Economic sanctions alone would be enough - notice how Trump pauses shooting at our collective feet every time Wall Street reacts negatively? – but also note that our adventures in the Middle East failed after trillions of dollars because it’s much easier to blow things up than it is to build stable countries. A far less competent crew is not going to sway civilians more effectively and I doubt that they’re going to convince many Americans to personally help colonize Greenland.
European defence companies are about to see the biggest demand boom of our lifetime.
Most of them have had double digits growth in their stock price over the last few days[0]:
"Britain’s BAE Systems rose by 15% on Monday, Germany’s Rheinmetall gained 14%, France’s Thales increased 16% and Italy’s Leonardo was also up 16%. In London the surge in defence related shares helped to push the FTSE 100 to a new record high"
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/03/european-de...
Rheinmetall has already been going absolutely bonkers on the stock market.
Wouldn't be surprised if Trump bought shares.
The Soviet arms industry experienced a similar boom in the 1980s due to an eye wateringly expensive arms race with America.
Spoiler alert: it did not end well for them.
Putin is setting another trap.
I think you misunderstand why exactly the USSR's weapon production hurt them. There were a number of circumstances that were specific to the Soviets that made their decisions uniquely self-destructive:
1. They already had an enormous weapon stockpile from the 60s and 70s that was becoming rapidly outdated, and was manufactured with few basically no limit on the unit count being made, resulting in tens-of-thousands of surplus weapons being funded by the state and the economy bending to support an oversized MIC.
2. Soviet Russia had a struggling economy in the 60s and 70s, and an almost nonfunctional one in the 80s. The idea of developing new digital weapons was basically trashed, and the "next generation" Soviet weaponry became the surplus analog stuff they stockpiled. Research and prototyping ground to a halt as Russia lost self-sufficiency on the technology that mattered.
3. The Soviet-Afghanistan war weakened the USSR's traditional force composition to the point that it was doubtful they could fight a traditional war, even with a relatively untrained adversary. Thousands of Soviet soldiers died to prove that Russia's doctrine wasn't going to win a pitched battle against a well-funded enemy.
Europe already avoided over-arming themselves like the USSR, they have a modernized economy, and they aren't fighting proxy wars against forces they can't beat. As an American citizen I'm more concerned with our own country resting on it's laurels, struggling to modernize it's supply chain and threatening to fight wars in the Levant with no clear goal.
I'm not sure how this plays out as Putin setting a trap? This is probably going to be a bit expensive for European taxpayers, myself included, but we'll get by.
Russia on the other hand may have issues similar to the 80s/90s if we get serious with sanctions on shipping oil.
[dead]
Trump wants to cut the military as well, so it will be double disastrous for the US military complex.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/13/defense-stocks-drop-after-tr...
Who would have thought that the POTUS would be the person to kick foreign arms industries into sixth gear?
Just like everything else he’s done, I’m not remotely surprised. I wonder if people realize where this all ends, and are taking appropriate precautions.
Well he’s been very vocal about NATO countries increasing their defense contributions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the US needs to sell all the weapons.
And all everybody speaks of is expenditure, not capabilities. That alone should tell you what the goal is.
Except it might backfire if Europe understandably decides it must buy European.
Yes, seems like things are already starting to take off:
- Shares of Starlink’s European rival Eutelsat have tripled. CEO says it can do the job in Ukraine. [1]
- Boost for German economy: Armaments sector picks up former car industry employees [2]
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/shares-of-starlinks-europe... [2] (German only) https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Ruestungsbranche-sammelt-ehem...
"Trump Tells Europe to Buy American Arms to Keep NATO Strong". [1]
"U.S. President Donald Trump complained Thursday that his country's decades-old security treaty with Japan is nonreciprocal, as he steps up pressure on allies to increase defense spending and buy more American products." [2]
It's about buying more American weapons.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-tel...
[2] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/03/fd3521d51353-upda...
> It's about buying more American weapons.
He's an idiot if he really thinks that his actions will result in this.
European defense stocks are going parabolic right now.
He is indeed an idiot. Often more of an idiot than anyone else around.
Yeah this turning of F16 support is really going to sell them.
We're not increasing defense spending to appease Trump though. We're increasing defense spending because we realize a need for strategic independence from the US. Because for the comming 4 years, it's obvious that the US won't be a reliable partner, and might even be an adversary. It makes no sense for us to buy American if we need strategic independence from the US.
Sometimes I wonder if he's a secret genius that leverages his own stupidity.
E.g. he might be solely responsible for getting the Liberals reelected in Canada, something that a year ago you would have thought was absolutely impossible. But Trump is so deeply hated in Canada now that every time he mocks Trudeau it makes the Liberals more popular. Liberal support, which before Trump was elected was so low as to make a Conservative election win seem inevitable, has skyrocketed since Trump took office. It's now pretty much a dead heat, and that's before the Liberals have elected their new leader.
So I don't know, maybe he just really, really wanted the Liberals to get reelected and he pulled off the only way to make it happen. Maybe he felt sorry that Canadians seemed so internally divided, so he threatened to annex Canada to unite us.
Or maybe he's a moron that can't even understand cause and effect.
https://338canada.com/polls.htm
[dead]
He has been pretty vocal about exactly that. He said multiple times that European countries must increase defense budgets significantly.
Yes, but he said that in the context of buying American products. He wanted the American economy to benefit from arms sales, not a more independent Europe.
Historically, an independent Europe has meant continental war after continental war, and Europe is again pushing for a continental war.
This isn’t “Europe” pushing for a war, that’s solely Russia. That’s also why this policy reversal is so shocking: until recently, pretty much everyone accepted the post-WWII consensus that the United States helping to stabilize Europe was better for everyone. Trump throwing in with Russia is not only a betrayal of our allies but also dramatically increasing the risk of war since it tells Russia and anyone else so inclined that wars of aggression are viable as long as you make it financially rewarding for him.
What are you talking about? Isn't it Russia that's pushing for a continental war, not Europe?
Source please, that seems totally made up.
He has been clear about NATO %'s, very little room for your confusion.
Almost every time he talks about it you’ll see some detail like this link shared by someone else:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-tel...
EU is being threatened with tariffs because we’re not buying „enough” things from the US, including among others arms. The „suggestion” has always been to spend that money in the USA.
Yes. To buy more American weapons.
Yeah, but EU countries donated weapons like the F-16, which were bought from the US in the first place. So now we have to use another source for those weapon systems and the revenue/jobs won't end up in the US.
Is this really what the US wants?
That's US's problem. Which is very minor compared to Ukraine's or Europe's problems with this war.
What exactly was Europe’s problem? Did they not invite war by promising to provide only ineffective assistance to Ukraine? Which European nation does not have nukes? Which cannot flatten Moscow? Yet none even implied a willingness to do what it would take to prevent an invasion. Either win or lose. There is no honor in sending millions of young men to die.
I wonder when European founders start switching from Azure/AWS/Google to domestic alternatives. I feel the risk of being thrown out all of the sudden increases every day.
I work for one of the domestic alternatives.
Guess where our network gear vendors are? (Currently using mostly Arista, but also some Juniper core routers, used to have Cisco gear too).
Guess where our OS is being sold from? (Even when use Linux, much of it is RHEL).
We use VMWare products (yep, US), and Openshift (RHEL, also US).
We use F5 and A10 load balancers. Both US.
There's sooo much off-the-shelf hardware, software and firmware from the US; replacing one of them would be a big to huge integration project; replacing them all would be an endless nightmare, especially if the only alternative is from China. If there even is a practical alternative.
Already happening in multiple places.
So is it going to be Kubernetes as the IaC stack from now on? I'm asking as a heads up as I foresee a potential major demand for infrastructure migrations in the future.
> going to be Kubernetes as the IaC stack
Not unless its heavily modified to scale past 10k nodes sensibly. its security/secrets model also needs a boatload of work before you can think about hosting untrusted parties on your kit.
This is a sign of a rapid decline of the US in the world stage, faster than I expected a year ago.
A new world order is being established and the US wouldn't be a leader in that world.
I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up:
I’ve thought for a while now that the U.S. has spent a long time building up subjective resources in goodwill, trust, reliability, etc. (you can certainly bicker about the details here). But with Trump, they’re cashing in on all of that. They’re selling the laptops and office chairs (sometimes quite literally) as a business strategy.I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest.
My concern is that the consequences of the current strategy are too far into the future to act as a sufficient deterrent. It’ll feel like it actually works for a time. But then eventually everyone hates you and adapts to exclude you.
Nothing like a bully POTUS to bring out all the rose-colored glasses praising the US for something that it never was. Set in the context of a representative of neocolonial France speaking about “the free world”.
I don’t understand the causality. Trump reaches a new low and the slogans about the benevolent past reaches a new, even more naive high.
> I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest.
For how many years has the US been not-at-war?
[flagged]
Does the US have total control? They sure have wide influence, but influence is different from control. The power to take something diminishes when you use it.
Yes. When the rubber meets the road, they have total control because what is anybody going to do about it?
What are you going to do to keep the American tech sector up? Point guns at people so they post on Instagram?
We are talking about geopolitical and financial power, not Instagram.
That power has been given because there was trust that the US would not fuck you over. That agreement seems to have been canceled by the US, therefore that power can be removed, too.
The EU didn’t give power to the US. The US took it after the European states got decimated after WWII. Power is not given, it’s taken.
You would be surprised what 96% of the mankind can do to a perceived bully. Just keep doing what you're doing
Europe is both financially bankrupt and incompetent, with poor governance continuously hindered by the ambition of each country within the “union”. It will take decades at best for the EU to be competitive, assuming it won’t disintegrate before which is also a very real outcome.
And I say this as an European.
So, as a European, what would you want to see happen? Do whatever we can to appease Trump, living as a subject, all because resistance is futile?
Don't overestimate the US military industrial complex. Their biggest skill is lobbying, and selling massively expensive 'super weapons' that are too expensive to use.
What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine? Ukraine is not and has not been a US ally. It's been used to make certain elements within our government and power structure very rich. It's been used to develop bioweapons we don't want to make on our lands. That's it.
The US is not the global policeman and the US taxpayer is not the global defense financier.
> What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine?
Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
> The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
Which was negotiated as part of a package to prevent nuclear proliferation being required to provide security assurances. America's treatment of Ukraine will be remembered when diplomatic disarmament is proposed to North Korea and Iran.
Thank you. That memo is not a treaty, ratified by our Senate. Second, Russia clearly broke the agreement. Third it only states that the US is obligated to provide assistance if a threat or act of aggression where nuclear weapons are used. As long as Russia does not use nuclear weapons (or threatens them!), we have no obligation in this agreement.
Also it does not specify assistance. Clearly the US has already assisted Ukraine in defending from the invasion from Russia. And clearly the US people are tired of assisting them. We have no alliance with Ukraine.
I'm not saying the US is bound by international law to follow this verbatim. I am saying that our stance here is exactly the motivation required to promote nuclear proliferation to any country that demands others respect their borders.
Iran and North Korea now have no diplomatic path to nuclear disarmament. America has no credible homeland ICBM defense, either, so we're playing a very dangerous game.
Over 6,000 Ukrainians performed military service in Iraq and Kuwait, as allies of the US. They signed the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia/the USSR has been a main or the main enemy of the US for decades and Ukraine is doing the US a service standing up to them. Why do you think the US even had an $800bn military budget for decades?
US Department of Defense article from 2019:
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/20...
>In 2016, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed to a 5-year concept of partnership that focuses on developing a robust and capable Ukranian military and reforming the Ukrainian defense sector to be in line with NATO standards and principles.
...and a lot more. There are five main points.
The point is, the US was heavily actively involved in Ukraine for decades. They were not a bystander.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. US prosperity is rooted in its overwhelming military might. People dare not take it on for fear of reprisal. Those who occasionally try are quickly reminded through reciprocal action. US companies benefit greatly from secure operations and relatively laissez-faire domestic economic policies to grow into world behemoths.
Don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that your safety and security are tied to some "Kumbaya good feeling" that random strangers have towards you. The stick may be silent most of the time, but everyone knows it's there.
It's both.
The stick being silent only works if people believe you won't randomly start swinging it if they cooperate, and people trusting you not to swing wouldn't matter if you didn't have a stick.
Meh. I think that's backwards. The US has a strong military because of its economic success.
Same with China. Get rich first then buy guns.
What’s the motivation, if the Russians have the strong cards in this upcoming peace negotiation the current administration feels the need to weaken the Ukrainian side equipment? Slice of the minerals?
He forces Ukraine to take a bad deal by removing their ability to walk away. That deal involves more revenue for him and ensures that he gets to tell his voters that he kept his promise to end the war. His first impeachment was over trying to extort Ukraine’s assistance in election rigging so the humiliation is an extra bonus.
Trump/Musk/Republicans have taken the side of a fascist dictator Putin. Every recent move wrt Ukraine has benefitted Russia. Even if it means betraying democratic allies and decades long alliances.
It is so shameful and disgusting.
Honestly curious what you, and proponents for continuing to arm Ukraine, think should be done about Russia's encroachment into Western Europe?
People have different idea but roughly the Ukrainian plan seems to be hold the current lines approximately, destroy Russian assets and work on Russia collapsing economically to the extent they have to pull back a bit like their Afghanistan experience.
Anders Puck Nielsen on that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZ56C-f4a8&t=422s That's starting at the Ukrainian plan but it's worth watching the whole vid if you are interested.
Thanks! I'll watch it later.
I am confused why you ask this of the proponents. The proponents think that Russia is performing horrendous war crimes and must be stopped from encroaching further. We see massacres such as Bucha where Russia had a couple of days and indiscriminately butchered innocent civilians and realized that there is no other way but to keep fighting to stop Russia from taking more territory and lives.
My question is more looking for what changes to the strategy are proposed? Arming Ukraine hasn't stopped Russia from these crimes so far. There's certainly some turning point point where US, or NATO, involvement will be seen as a declaration is war against Russia and it's allies, right?
Another commenter suggest sent a video about this that I'll watch later, I suspect the answer lies there, but thought I'd share with you so you can have some understanding of what someone who sees both side's surface level plans as confusing and problematic .
Arming Ukraine has absolutely stopped Russia from advancing and stopped them from committing more crimes.
Nothing will stop Putin but force.
Russia has no allies, just cronies such as Lukashenko and Russia is de-facto at war with the west. The front line just goes through Ukraine.
Isn't Russia still advancing though? I've only been watching these video updates: https://youtu.be/G8jreLqRSXI?si=wopg1BQA1rc-jhfg
What encroachment do you mean? There isn't much encroachment other than sabotage. Perhaps some financing of undermining political parties. There was significant encroachment of eastern Europe, but that has slowed down due to attention going towards the Ukraine war.
The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that Russia has as little benefit from their invasion as possible. Luckily this is effectively wholly compatible with Ukrainian goals.
Sorry, I should have said encroachment towards the west, or really just "invasion of Ukraine".
> The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that Russia has as little benefit from their invasion as possible
But how? Is it mostly to prolong the war until Russia gets tired of spending money and resources on it?
I wish Europe and the US would have just put their foot down and kicked out Russia swiftly and decisively in 2022.
Rather the have adopted the doctrine of "Ukraine can't lose, but Ukraine may not win". Always supplying just enough arms to keep the Ukrainian front from collapsing not to "stir up" Russia.
or in 2014 when they first invaded
Doesn't seem like that would have made anything better though. I thought the general consensus was that direct action would have just escalated things?
I watched a video recently that discussed all the grudges against the West/NATO Russia (Putin) has been holding onto since the mids 90s that makes them feel justified now.
But who cares if Putin escalates. He already is all-in to the tilt. If he had more he would deploy it.
The only thing left would be nuking. He hasn't dared and likely won't.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/europe/putin-nuclear-warns-we...
He has dared. Empty threats? Maybe... but that's quite the gamble to make.
Edit: To downvoters...
Why?
Drain Russia in the war. Make them pay for every day they are invading. Make them pay in human lives, make them pay in losy industrial output. Make them pay in economic welfare. Not just on Ukrainian soil.
If at all possible, take back any Ukrainian territory. Reduce whatever gain they got from this invasion. But even if the current line stands, the more Russia can be made to bleed, the less it will think that war can be a net postive for them.
[flagged]
You realize all the printed money goes towards European and US arms manufacturers and just creates jobs in Europe and the US?
Even the billions in humanitarian support spend in Europe are mostly just housing refugees from Ukraine in Europe thus flows to landlords and supermarkets in Europe.
This war in Ukraine is costing us pennies for each dollar that Russia is wasting in the blood fields of Ukraine.
It doesnt create jobs in US. It is another bulk order of factory line-items for those already ingratiated with a comfy MIC contract. No one benefits except the neo-cons and the ones already with their feet up.
Europe's bill may create jobs in Europe, if it was genuine.
I am sure printing money to then distribute to those with real estate property to house migrants is doing well for your housing/immigrant crises. Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.Now that the state-level propaganda machine is starting to wear down, the world is realizing that America wants America First.
> Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.
What does this even mean?
And do you realize that most of American GDP prowess in the last 40 years was driven by running a trade deficit and letting the world loan the money back to the US?
Trump just wants the war to end. Ukraine doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory under bad terms, so they won't make a deal. Putin is more than happy to take a deal that means they win. Trump thinks that if he weakens Ukraine then they'll be more willing to take a bad deal. He also doesn't like Ukraine or Zelenskyy, so has no particular desire to do them a favour.
Ukraine already surrendered chunk of its territory few years ago. You think this time it will be different and Russia won't try to take Ukraine again once it rebuilds its military potential?
The difference is that in the future (assuming the mineral deal goes through), there would be US citizens operating mineral franchises on Ukrainian territory. So if Russia harmed them in the future, we would be drawn into an actual war.
> doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory
It is not about a chunk of the territory.
Exactly. For Ukraine, a peace treaty now that allows Russia to regroup and invade again in N years is not really helpful.
France sending jets while the U.S. waves the white flag? Looks like the surrender baton just got passed westward.
Sigh… a few jets can’t compare to level of aid American tax payer has given the past few years. More than OK with France finally doing something.
The US' contribution has been incredibly significant and the war would have gone very differently without US support but the idea that the US has contributed most money is false and driven by hubris.
There's various ways of tracking support and by many metrics there are European countries that have given more than the US once you account for population & GDP. It gets more complicated for EU members as the EU has given financial support, so the largest funders of the EU, like France, have paid proportionally more via the EU than directly.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/these-co...
Also worth remembering that 70% of that aid from the US never left the US and was spent on procuring weapons from the US.
https://econofact.org/factbrief/does-most-u-s-aid-to-ukraine...
Europe has given more aid to Ukraine in total numbers than America if I'm not mistaken? So I'm not really sure if I see what you mean.
Yes, Europe has given more aid overall. And certainly much more per capita in many countries. The US has given more military aid, but not that much more.
Time for us in Europe to man up.
Thankfully it seems to be uniting the EU rather than dividing. Remains to be seen if they can get their act together though.
I'm sceptical. Recent movements in Germany point into the opposite direction or rather a continuation of wishful thinking. Yes, a lot of debt-funded defence investment is coming. They also promised some investment in "infrastructure". At the same time the debt increase will delay reforms that are overdue for 20 years and longer. There were already calls that, now, with all brakes off, we can increase rather than curb spending on the welfare state. As it currently looks, the productivity gap with the US and Asia will widen rather than shrink. A very disappointing development to say the least.
European manufacturing is more productive than US manufacturing. The US productivity advantage comes almost entirely from the US' strong tech (as in software) sector.
Tech (as in software) is what's being cut off to Ukraine, and tech (as in software, MEMS gyros, and GNSS) is how Ukraine keeps blowing up US$3M T-90 tanks with three or four US$500 FPV drones. So I think it's highly relevant to the question of sovereignty.
As far as I know all cheap drone tech is provided by China (to both Russia and Ukraine).
It's largely kind of an international open-source effort, but there is a lot of crucial hardware that is only available from China, yes. Until this week I think Anduril was in a good position to become an alternative to China in two to four years, but this move strongly undermines their credibility overseas.
> There were already calls that, now, with all brakes off, we can increase rather than curb spending on the welfare state.
I'm curious: Where can I read more about this? Which parties (and how many) are saying this? Is there any pushback from Merz?
One example is pensions. For demographic reasons the state pension system is underfunded for years, a situation that is projected to become worse. One solution would be to increase contributions which are already sky-high and make working or opening a business a lot less attractive in Germany. Another is to freeze pensions. Guess what happened? Germany's old government increased the contribution level starting in January this year [1]. Additional, a pension raise [2] has recently been announced and the newly-found debt will provide funding for additional benefits for pensioners [3]. It more and more feels like a gerontocracy.
[1] https://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/DRV/DE/Ueber-uns-... [2] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/rentensteigeru... [3] https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/innenpolitik...
Germany has slightly higher productivity per hour worked than the US. There's a productivity gap between the US and European economies as a whole (which is a relatively recent phenomenon dating back to around 2005), but Germany is quite productive.
I should have more precisely referred to the "productivity growth gap" (https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000053...)
I hate to be the guy, but I find myself having to point this out to all of my doom-minded American friends. Yes, Trump is a criminal idiot, but one positive, probably unintended effect is that the world becomes more, in the words of Taleb, anti-fragile. As an American I am thrilled that Europe is becoming more united, more pragmatic, and more self-reliant. Our relationship is not over, it is just changing, and Europe is experiencing a long-needed renaissance.
Of course Europe always had some ability to defend itself, but I think it's clear that some of that ability was outsourced to the US(with reciprocal benefits for the US, but still). Yes, this introduces some redundancy into the Western sphere, but that's a good thing.
[flagged]
Better than having to cry in russian in 20 years.
Also, according to Perun, if Europe collectively raises defense spending to somewhere near 4,5% (I think, check last Sundays episode) it will outspend not only US but US and China together.
Might as well adopt Songun.
Heh, North Korea is involved!
*eg. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/09/europe/russia-advances-ku...
FWIW, all European countries combined spend 5x more on military expenditure, than Russia. And that's using old numbers, before Trump became POTUS.
Yet Russia has more brigades, more artillery and artillery shells, more nukes. The comment above is right. Europe needs to wake the hell up and increase military production 10X, even if temporarily.
If Russians take Ukraine, they will force their population to attack the next country. Just like it happened with men of Donbass.
lol Russia are barely making progress in Ukraine, and have effectively been in a stalemate since the 2022 invasion - while currently shipping back their wounded vets to the frontline on donkeys. Hadn't it been for Trump, Russia would effectively go bankrupt before being able to cross the Dnipro river.
The only real capability Russia has, are their nuclear weapons and other long-range weapons - and even with the latter, they have been struggling.
FWIW, I worked in the defense industry, and even before the invasion Russia has been viewed as a paper tiger. They're good at coming up with novel ideas and weaponry, but for whatever reason, struggle to successfully get things from the drawing board to operational weapons.
s/are/were barely making progress. The ~20% [1] reduction [2] in total supplies to the ukraine front line lead to the logical prediction that frontline dynamics would be impacted. Early indicators suggest this prediction is materializing. [3].
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-europe-react-sh... Pre freeze: "Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute think tank in the U.K., told ABC News that recent estimates indicate the U.S. share of all military hardware sent to the front has fallen to around 20%, with 25% coming from Europe and 55% domestically produced in Ukraine." ; also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
[2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/03/04/us-weapo...
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/09/europe/russia-advances-ku...
Please not more "masculine energy."
The point stands that Europe needs to arm itself. Europe needs to be able to defend itself without the US.
Indeed there is slight toxicity to calling this 'manning up'. Especially towards men, where it signals that men should be strong enough to defend themselves. Which wronly reinforces the idea that capability in violence is a positive trait in men.
Thank you for that understanding and nuanced response. It actually gives me great comfort to see someone communicate so well in today's climate.
I of course agree with the point about Europe and you've beautifully captured the reason why the phrasing gave me an uneasy feeling. The line between the necessary reaction and over-reaction is terrifyingly small and I hope for the best for all of us.
> that men should be strong enough to defend themselves
What's wrong with that, aside that it's missing "themselves and their women and children"?
The whole idea that it's somehow "toxic" made EU the weak sausage that it is now.
It's reductive, essentialist and prescriptive. It's fine for someone to defend themselves but saying that "men should be strong enough" to do so gets quite murky. Would you say Stephen Hawking was less of a man because he was unable to defend himself? Is someone who defends themselves by de-escalating a situation through dialogue less of a man than someone who uses their strength? The above statement implies these things but I certainly don't think they're true.
Toxic is your word and I'm not sure the EU is a "weak sausage." I think it's remarkable that so many people within the EU have been able to co-exist peacefully for so long and work together in developing systems that give them other options than the kinds of violence we saw for so much of the past. Would you really point to Russia and say that they're in a stronger position because their leader exhibits some loosely defined manly ideals?
The fact that it demands violence off men. As my very next sentence states.
Demanding that a 'masculine man' is capable of violence is making men ... more violent. Men being too violent is a decently big societal problem. Hence, the idea that men should be able to defend themselves (and others) is harming society.
A man that can protect their family from a criminal or home intruder is harming society? Men with enough balls and sense of duty that join armed forces, so society is able to protect itself, are harming society?
If I was Putin or other adversary of the West, I would pour tons of money into promotion of this self-castrating idea.
They didn't say those things did they? They said "the idea that men should be able to defend themselves (and others) is harming society." The idea that they are duty-bound to these things by their manhood, not that they choose to do so. People should feel free to make their own reasoned choices.
Yeah what we need is yet even more strong female politician color-matched photo-ops.
Europe has been castrated and has been impotent for decades. Maybe this will change things.
You mean: European militaries haven’t done their historical norm, which is starting wars that kill horrific numbers of civilians. The only serious militarized power in that side of Eurasia is Russia, and what are they doing? Killing horrific numbers of civilians.
Seems like the reasonable goal would be to embargo Russia until they disarm like the other adults in the region.
[flagged]
[flagged]
What even is masculine/feminine energy? I was making reference to Zuckerberg saying Facebook needed more masculine energy as it seemed to chime with the idea of "manning up." But honestly it feels as disconcerting to see people respond as if this is an actual thing, in as much as it would if HN were to take a sudden interest in astrology.
Yeah. These replies are disturbing.
Today, masculine energy means right wing and feminine or beta energy means left wing.
If you don’t believe me, go read up on the genderfication of politics in the last 10 years. Women are from Venus and men are from mars. There’s no reconciling them.
Yeah come on. Barroso, Draghi or Scholz were no better. Draghi maybe a bit better, Scholz way worse. But of course why look at facts when you have a simple narrative that allow you to not think.
And given the topic let's not forget Trump, Putin, Musk et al if we're following the above logic.
[flagged]
You don't read books by women? What? Maybe if you did you would understand how big of a role the socio-political effects of European patriarchy had in whatever veracity the rest of your assertions had.
This is all pretty off topic and not the time to get into it but I find what you're saying pretty wild. Of course there's nothing wrong with being a man but it's still a good idea to listen to women's experiences and learn from books they've written. There are all sorts of unfair power structures in the world and it's good to learn about them, especially at this juncture in history, or else we run the risk of making the same mistakes again and again.
Of course I read books by women. I would only encourage you to research if the blood, sweat, and tears of your ancestors are the "socio-political effects of European patriarchy" or just people who build a home that attracts people from all over the world.
Is no one in Europe not skeptical of the increase in defense spending? Things have costs, that money is having to come from somewhere.
Is increasing traditional military spending the way to go in the 21st century? If the decision is left to military leaders,they might spend massive amounts of money preparing to fight yesterday's war.
If you set aside alarmist positions, it may very well possible that Russia has no interests in military conflict with rest of Europe beyond Ukraine.
In that case what is the best thing Europeans could do?
There is danger and risk in military over spending at this juncture, and Europe needs to be level headed about it.
We have opened for €800 billions in investments through the EU.
So, no.
Calling anything "alarmist positions" now is just uninformed; Putin has said Russia wants the USSR territory back, their entire industry is now turned to produce weapons, their schools are "Putin-Jugend", they are currently invested in the first "great war" since WW2.
And the US isn't just getting out of Europe - they have gone full turncoat.
This is an unmitigated disaster for both US (citizens) and EU, and the EU is trying to manage what they can.
This conflict may be a disaster for Ukraine, but how is this conflict a disaster for Europe?
Is Europe going to ratchet military spending at Putins's bluff?
10 month old account with a handful posts calling Putin's actions in Europe a "bluff"... spidey sense is tingling.
If they succeed in Ukraine then they are free to re-arm. Meanwhile Trump has made it clear that article 5 is worthless, so the Baltics are there for the taking. As much as I'd like to say they can rely on the rest of NATO, I'm really unsure if the UK or France would be willing to sacrifice London or Paris for Tallinn or Vilnius.
Because Putin will take whatever he can of Europe, starting with Ukraine and the baltic states.
Putin’s Russia is already at war with Europe - assassinations, destabilisation operations, sabotage.
If you,Europeans believe that Russia is such an existential threat,why not attack preemptively ?
George W. Bush showed the world what "preemptive defense" leads to.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" seems to be a better plan for stability while keeping aggressors in check.
Nuclear retaliation.
Are you arguing against spending money on armies at all, or do you want Europe to spend money on more effective weapons?
It sounds like you're not keeping up on things. We know where the money is coming from. It's headline news daily in the financial press. What are you talking about? And yes, of course we need to defend ourselves.
The money is coming from increased debt.
Europe has benefited a lot from not having to pour tons of money into defense spending. Europeans will be hurting if their countries suddenly have to shift finances for this.
I think it’s much easier to just hunker down and appease the United States for four years and hope the next administrations are more merciful.
Maybe... but probably not. Having to divert investments from one part of the economy to another is not that much a big problem: Russia has been doing the same and they have an economy of war that works more or less (some say they are on the brink of collapse and yet, they are still there). So, Europe can totally rely way less on the US, they just have to change their priorities, and they'll adapt just as Russia has adapted. Thinking they cannot is really presumptuous, or even comptemptuous (and a lot of people have made the same mistake with Russia by the way). And yet, at the moment, the US think that way, not believing in soft power any more, but only in pure pressure or even blackmail. If history teaches one thing, it is that you always create your own ennemies (Versailles treaty comes to mind).
That is not what is happening. Listen to Ursula. She’s telling you what is happening. Eu countries are being “allowed” to go into debt without triggering eu debt procedures. It won’t be reinvestment. It will be dilution of currency though debt. Something all too familiar to Americans.
Correct. Interestingly enough, it will massively increase the supply of euro bonds, and probably pull in a bunch of cash that goes to US treasuries now.
If there's enough pan European bonds (which there won't be) then the reserve currency status of the dollar could be threatened.
"hope"
Even if Trumpism is gone by 2028, nothing goes back to normal. We'll see the raise of ITAR-free weapons systems from Europe and Asian "former" US allies and cooperation around the US.
What Trump and MAGA people don't realize is that 11 carrier groups sailing around the seas alone are not that big a threat. Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) provide unsinkable airfields, supply depots for the US all over the world. They are massive power multiplier for the US military.
I'm not sure Denmark is going to cancel our F35 orders. From a security perspective, it's certainly in our interest to pretend this isn't a big deal. And that everything is normal.
But I'm not surprised that our prime minister recently did not leave out the possiblity of hosting nukes on Danish territory.
Given the theatre in the US one could even say we'll need nukes to defend Greenland.
I wonder if F35s will be like HP printers and refuse to start unless they phone home?
The Donald wants Groenland ... After that, why not Denmark itself ?
> After that, why not Denmark itself ?
Hmm, the US welcome to liberate us from sour tax burden. I suspect the invading force will surrender when they see the liabilities :)
Trump probably is planning to cash in by raping the country of its mineral and oil wealth.
Could there be an orchestrated effort by volunteers to replace what the Americans were doing or does this rely on intelligence insight the Americans have?
In country if 40 Million desperate people as educated as the Ukrainians there should be quite the talent pool to try to hack this.
Regarding flagging: I think the worry is that, with all the political news constantly generated by Donald in the white house, HN might get submerged by politics constantly rather than the hacker-related stuff we all come here for.
I disagree. The majority of HN readers are Americans and a vocal and active subset don’t like seeing articles which are critical of their “great” nation.
I respect your opinion, but as a non-American myself (Canadian), I also really don't like having my feed filled with whatever the last drama was that Donald stirred up. HN for me is an escape from other news outlets.
That and the discussions are basically devoid of any new info or insight. If you were to take a random comment from each of these threads, youd probably have a hard time telling which came from where.
True. This post is just being used as a reason to continue previous threads with very little connection to the submission. I am of two minds on this. The first is 'I want my life to be about cool tech and interesting ideas' and the second is 'This is a critical moment in history so people need to discuss it more than anything else'. At this exact moment I lean towards the latter so I think it is, unfortunately, important to get everyone out into discussion and action even in discussion forums like HN.
> This is a critical moment in history so people need to discuss it more than anything else
You may be correct on this, but I'm trying to keep in mind that we still have 4 more years of this and I think this may sorta be the new normal for the time being. I'd hate to see HN get distracted by every new drama Donald gets himself involved in till 2029.
Congratulations to Russia for winning the Cold War I guess.
Today your aircraft, tomorrow all your mobile phones. I'm pretty sure those could all be remote bricked.
Nuh uh! Hacker News told me that American businesses have the ultimate moral imperative to cease operations in any country that demands invasive control of my devices.
Surely my smartphone OEM would fight the entire American government before handing over my data.
The EU should buy - or even license produce - Swedish Saab Gripens to help the Ukrainians resist.
Low cost, simple to operate, and specially designed to fight Russian aggression.
Really makes you wonder if that "president" could be teaming up with the other side...
The Ukraine Today article seems to be a copy of this Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-t...
For additional context, here's an article from August about how the USAF helped to upgrade the F-16 electronic warfare capabilities: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-f-16-electronic-wa...
The words "lose support" is carrying a lot of weight in this reporting.
Beyond being morally reprehensible (and it really is), this is a humongous own-goal.
I don't think US arms manufacturers should expect many future orders from the EU.
What a move to break the spine of us forces and industrial complex at the same time .
And if the American defense sector wasn't bruised enough from the last month, Elon musk was on social media this weekend claiming he could collapse the Ukranian frontlines by disabling Starlink and insulting the Polish foreign minister for buying Starlink systems...
https://bsky.app/profile/tatarigami.bsky.social/post/3ljxhgc... https://bsky.app/profile/tendar.bsky.social/post/3ljx3esi74k...
Hahahaha, do they even know what they are doing to their US hegemony?! This kind of short-term thinking leads to the US enemies laughing all their way into the bank. They don‘t even understand what they‘re losing here. If they don’t try to path-correct very soon this is the beginning of a gradual decline. Is the current U.S. leadership really that afraid? There is no reason to act like this otherwise. Or this is some very very incredibly smart way of ”peace through strength”. Go figure and good luck all.
What stops the Russians from reprogramming their radars to switch to a different frequency every 5 minutes as specified by a CSPRNG? It seems like it would make the manual reprogramming of jammers pointless.
These systems are much more advanced than how you perceive them.
[dead]
This is going to make Australia think twice about those Virginia subs
I genuinely wish there was an understandable endgame for the USA. The USA seems to be throwing its weight around but I’m not entirely sure to what end. This headline/article is just one area where the US is behaving perplexingly.
I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees. Fine there’s at least a through line. However; by demonstrating that the US is willing to revoke access to this war material during an active shooting war over some ego thing they’re showing allies who’ve invested in the US military equipment that they’re vulnerable to suffer this same fate. Now Europe is turning hard away from US tech.
To some degree this is a good thing, I think, from USA’s POV. Trump has said it’s unfair USA spends the most on NATO and that member states should pay more (how many don’t hit the 2% target). However; the point was to spend their 2% GDP on American armaments. Now Europe is taking their demand and money and investing in domestic military equipment. Which will inevitably beg the question in the coming years if NATO, a US establishment, is to be made redundant?
This US administration can’t seem to have their cake and eat it too. They want money, demand for their goods, but every time they act out they drive away their business partners.
What would trump do differently if he had been told explicitly by putin to destroy the usa?
He would have been asked to be a little less obvious about it?
NATO as has existed is already over. Nobody has any faith that the US will follow through on its Article 5 obligations.
The fun part - US is the only country that called Article 5.
The clown in the oval office claimed we wouldn't help them. More Danish men died per capita in middle east because of article 5 than men from the US...
80+ countries to USA: "we want our money back, money spent on your war that shouldn't had happened in the first place"
If that’s the case that “NATO as has existed is already over” then maybe it is wise for the USA to pull out. Maybe that’s the endgame for Europe? Europe defends Europe (or gets taken over by Russia I guess), and USA isn’t on the hook for its defense anymore.
NATO is there to make sure that the dollar is the dominant trading currency.
NATO is the reason why saudis are trading in dollars.
NATO is the reason that the US has credible nuclear deterrents
NATO is why america doesn't need to have a physical colonial empire in europe (otherwise it'd need to subjugate cyprus, and somewhere like saaremaa, and that costs a shit tonne of money)
NATO isn't about playing for defence of europe, its about keeping the USSR and russia far enough away to keep trading routes open.
Americans all have this attitude that theyre "on the hook" for everyone elses defence as if theyre the white knight defending the world against evil. Its more like the local mob tough guys who have been taking protection money for the last 40 years backed down when a rival gang finally decided to make a move
Please don't use sweeping generalizations like this.
The hyperbole interferes with construction discussion.
Are you a LLM? This is what the rest of the world feels mate!! Its a part of the discussion.
There are lots of sites you can visit to vent your emotions by making inflammatory, inaccurate generalizations to a receptive, cheering echo chamber.
Let's not do that here.
Its an accurate generalization
> Americans all have this attitude
...
> Its an accurate generalization
I'm American, and I don't have that view. So it's clearly not literally true.
So perhaps you mean that it's "mostly" true. Then I'd ask, what evidence do you have to support that? Is there some poll of public opinion you can refer to? That's something we could meaningfully discuss.
Actually, your view is true even if there exists even just one person with your view. In reality what matters is the distribution of views. Furthermore, what matters is the distribution of views by the decision makers because those will be divorced from public distribution and informed by other secret plans or information unknown to public. So in a sense, it doesn't matter whether he is right or you are.
You are incredibly insulated. Read some books about the world and world history.
Here's one for you: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vincent-bevins/the-...
I wonder if you've misunderstood the topic of this thread.
We've been discussing whether or not certain views are held by nearly 100% of current Americans.
IIUC, that book focuses on evils done by the US government in 1965. I'm not seeing the connection.
America is pulling out. That is the only reason that NATO is ending.
If Europe is taken over by Russia, you don't think the U.S. will be next?
I'd say it's on hold for four years till they get a new president. In the meanwhile I guess the other members will have to try to manage.
In 4 years another administration could come in but there's still damaged trust. If something happens in 5, 6 years from now and article 5 kicks in then even if the US comes to help what is there to say they won't suddenly pull out again 2 years into a war when Vance takes charge? The reliability is gone.
I guess you've got to be flexible depending on circumstances. I mean NATO only really got going after Europe elected Hitler and now we have another iffy electoral result to work with.
What happened in Germany that allowed the US to trust them again?
After the war they seem to have realised the error of their ways. I note with the recent Musk salute Germany had the largest fall in Tesla sales, 80%.
I think they might have been helped along a little by things like being occupied, becoming economically and militarily reliant on their occupiers and watching all of their leaders face judgement at the Nuremberg Trials.
Things haven't gotten quite so extreme in the US yet but it feels reductive to suggest that they can just have a flip flop election and that will show they "realised the error of their ways" like Germany did post WW2.
I think culturally most of the US is still pro NATO, it's just Trump and friends who are anti. I guess if Vance succeeds him things will be similar but if the dems win they won't.
I'm kind of interested if Russia could become normal if the current regime collapses.
The Allies forced a system of re-eductaion on Germany post ww2.
https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/scholarsweek/2016/Ger...
But what about four years after that? It's just not a good idea to depend on someone who is aligned with your enemies, even intermittently.
The US has burned trust well past 4 years. This has shown how the US political system enables this. Every 4 years they elect someone who has the power to just toss out everything the previous administration did or committed to. Every 4 years... and the US is so politically divided that it only takes a few percent of opinion change at each election to swing to the other party with polar opposite views. As a result, why would any other country now trust the US in any agreement? (not to mention the large number of agreements they have signed then just abandoned later) Four years is nothing time wise.. barely enough time to get an agreement fully implimented before the US can just say "Nah..." There will be significantly less trust for the US even beyond the Trump era.
It would be delusional to think that this can be patched up with a new president, or that any of America's former allies will be willing to wait around twirling their thumbs, hoping that the next time America flips a coin, it turns out better.
The relationship is over. Maybe in 4 years America can start making some initial steps towards patching things up, but even that seems increasingly unlikely at this point.
Why would another Republican President act any differently than Trump after they see how well that works? A majority of the US either doesn’t care about international affairs or they are actively isolationist.
Ukraine is already quietly divisive in Congress. If Russia were to roll into Poland I could see a legislative declaration of war.
In any event, maybe NATO just needs go squeak by four years without an Article 5 invocation to be back to normal.
With the current pace of how things are developing, we might not be able to squeak by four years.
Does anyone think a country not already involved in a nuclear war would willingly expose itself to being annihilated? NATO works best when all member states are stable, ideologically aligned, and its Article 5 resolve is untested. Here the uncertainty works in its favor. But when NATO expands past deep ideological alignment towards a maximal expansionist strategy, and openly courts states its rival signals as core security interests, NATO becomes something else entirely. When it became a tool for maximally isolating Russia, it undermined its own credibility as a unified security entity. There is a genuine question whether the US would go "all in" to defend eastern european states. The fact that we can credibly ask this question about a NATO member just shows how far it's gone from its initial ideals.
We need to remember the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance and not forget that Ukraine was coaxed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1993 by a guarantee of territorial integrity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Why do we need to remember this agreement that provided zero security guarantees? At most it ensures denuclearization is dead, but frankly speaking, it already was.
Maybe instead we should remember the 2014 Wales Summit that was intended to deter Russian invasion?
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit
Or maybe instead we should consider that right before Russia's invasion in February 2022, Europe collectively dropped their military spending as % of GDP? Possibly since Trump had left office in 2021? Its unfortunate deterrents don't function when you do this...
-https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_222664.htm
Actually, maybe what we need to remember is that most of Europes money has been going to Russia even after the invasion? What a strange thing for allies to do right?
- https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/
It's weird how the United States justified its support in Ukraine as securing the region for its allies while its allies undermined this at every step of the way, do allies usually do that? When I listen to them on TV they seem to care a lot about Ukraine so it's strange...
> point was to spend their 2% GDP on American armaments
Do the NATO agreements specify American armaments? Europe could have spent on European armaments and armies too, just chose not too because they didn't see a reason to.
Europe not buying F35 or whatever hurts US arms industry, but probably not the general strategic position of the US. There's even a credible argument (dont know how credible?) that these arms programs actually undermine security by investing crazy money in outdated / ineffective technology. The dumb part would be not learning from the Ukrainians how to fight a modern war.
US participation in NATO may be made redundant, but Europe's need for a credible collective defense agreement is not going away.
> I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees.
I don't think there are any "security guarantees". What could they be?
The "endgame" as far as I understand it: The US wants access to the minerals as a compensation for the money already spent and, perhaps, to restore some of the support currently put on hold (satellite data access). Once the Ukranian resistance is broken, the US and Russia will jointly dictate a peace, gradually install a Russia-friendly regime and split the profit between them. They will happily invite the EU to finance some of the rebuilding of Ukraine that is then mainly performed by US and Russian companies. The US furthermore hopes that by spearheading the lifting of sanctions it will get priority access to some beneficial deals with and within Russia itself.
I think the implicit guarantee is if American business and workers are harvesting minerals then if Russia attacked the USA would have even more incentive to intervene militarily.
That said, I don’t know what more Ukraine would want given the Budapest Memorandum already ties the USA, UK, and Russia to Ukraine’s defense. That’s proven to be a mixed success, as both USA, UK, and other countries have indeed stepped up for Ukraine’s defense.
> if American business and workers are harvesting minerals then if Russia attacked the USA would have even more incentive to intervene militarily
Or Russia just invades while being careful not to damage their buddy's mines. Maybe the US even helps the Russians out once the Ukranian "dictator" is forced to begin fighting in too close proximity to the minerals.
The point is that Russia won't have to attack any more, because Ukraine will already be nothing more than a puppet state after having been forced to sign the kind of peace deal that Putin wants.
There is no such thing as implicit guarantees. The US has shown it is not a trusted country, and as such, we expect that it will also renege any written guarantees.
American businesses and workers operate all over the world. No-one thinks that this means that all these countries will receive military support from the US if they are invaded.
Another relevant detail here is that a lot of the resources included in the deal are in territory that's currently occupied by Russia – which Trump clearly envisions Russia keeping in any peace settlement.
Truer words...
I think it boils down to the fact that Trump does not understand soft power. Slashing the most powerful and influential aid programme in the world shows that very clearly. The US is as rich as it is because they created an environment of stability (at least on their own territory) and ensuring that there are markets American companies can sell into.
Maybe not so much that as he sees everything as a bargaining chip and any unused chips as a waste. After all, bribery and favors are more or less what soft power is.
But Zelensky came to the white house to sign the deal. If Trump wanted the deal to be signed, it would have been signed. But he chose to gang up on Zelensky.
The endgame isn't for the USA, it's for Trump. I don't really know what it is, but I'm pretty certain that to understand his actions, you have to rid yourself of the idea that he's doing it for anybody or anything else than for himself.
Where was it requested/required to spend 2% on solely American armaments?
> I understand that Trump wants Zelenskyy to sign the minerals deal and that implicitly there’s security guarantees.
I don't think this is true at all, I think Trump wants Ukraine to be conquered and for Russia to win and for people to stop bothering him about any of it.
Trump blew up whatever nonsense minerals deal there was, and is actively sabotaging the Ukrainian defence efforts via this, and ending intelligence sharing, and apparently leaning on random American companies to stop them selling services to Ukraine, and by providing diplomatic cover and support to Russia.
people haven't seem to have caught on yet - the US has switched sides, it is now part of the Russia bloc.
What would you do if you were a team of US oligarchs with connections to the administration and wanted to increase your share of, and power over, the domestic cake?
Tell me it doesn't fit.
Edit: this story just dropped off the main page. Currently sitting at 85 points and 77 comments. It had position 2 or so, now it has position 79.
If Europe collectively decides they must only buy French and German weapons, there's less US cake.
Sure, but are these guys the kind who wants control over the whole cake or a smaller slice of a larger cake?
Look at Russia.
Suspicious that it’s not on the front page.
There is absolutely no interesting discussion going on in the comments here.
Lots of political flaming and not much else.
Upvote to comment ratio is low and people are likely flagging it too because it’s just world news.
I don't think Hacker News is trying to be Reddit.
Edit: no disagreement or flagging, just poof, gone. Likely someone knows how to make unwanted conversations go away on platforms like HN.
It's because number of comments > number of upvotes, which triggers flamewar detector.
> How are stories ranked? Other factors affecting rank include [...] software which demotes overheated discussions, [...]. [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Laat I think I knew anything it took surprisingly few flags and I think people abuse it all the time to get rid of things they personally don't like. And don't like is a broad category.
Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating non-US alternatives.
Seriously, America, this is like Brexit but 1000x. A voluntary decision, taken with gusto, to chop off arms and legs and ears and fingers and whatnot, cut off the deadwood, be light and free, a lone vessel on the ocean of prosperity, free of the burden of the stupid foreigners who are the sole reason why everything was going wrong.
Especially F-35 where lack of American support means total brick.
Hey, at least Ukraine can use their S-300 systems and Sukhois against their maker.
This is top of mind for all European countries that bought the F-35. They are painfully aware of this. So is the US defense industry which will notice softening sales kicking in a few years down the line as European countries are less inclined to buy US arms.
This was predictable though. The markets have already rewarded those who saw this coming.
I wonder if we'll see a coordinated wave of F-35 cancellations. They must all be aware they are potentially buying bricks. The time to do it, thus, is now - the situation isn't improving while time and money are wasted. But that's an enormous political escalation.
Or maybe Europeans, as "founding members", are able to support the planes on their own? I doubt it though. The engine alone is US made, ans that alone is probably unmaintainable without their support.
On the F-35 program, ability to perform local support isn't so much based on being a "founding member" but rather program partnership level. The only other Level 1 partner is the UK. As Level 2 we have Italy and the Netherlands. All other countries are down at Level 3 (most heavily dependent on US support), except for Israel which is sort of a special case with a unique variant and special rules about local control. Ultimately though, you're correct that the F-35 will quickly turn into a brick for every export customer without active US support.
The other factor is the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement. The F-35A is the only new aircraft certified to carry the US nuclear weapons under that arrangement, so that impacts Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands. Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead. Of course, if the US pulls back from NATO and ends nuclear sharing then that concern would become moot and some of those countries would be likely to develop their own nuclear weapons.
"Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead"
I remember the story rather like this:
US: "you want to certify your fighter for nuclear devices"
Germany: "yes"
US: "ooh, that will be expensive and takes a loooong time. Don't you want to just buy our F35 instead?"
And germany basically did. With the implicit understanding, to buy a piece of nuclear protection with that. Well, all gone ... so there are really only some voices left, wanting to keep buying the expensive, potentially useless bricks.
Yes, that's basically accurate. Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has always taken the cheapest possible military option in order to fund their precious social programs and treated the military as just another government jobs program. While I think the current US administration's moves to cut off our allies are deeply stupid and the moral equivalent of treason, Germany has only itself to blame for creating such a dependency. Alliances are always temporary and now Germany will have to face reality.
Europe can't even maintain some Eurofighter fleets without US support. The Austrian model for example needs a crypto key for secure communications from a US company for every flight.
The US cryptography key is only needed for NATO Link 16 communications, not for regular flight operations. This is totally normal because Austria isn't a full NATO member. They are part of the NATO Partnership for Peace program which allows for limited levels of cooperation.
All possible, I'm not familiar with the details.
But right now the fact that there US citizens (apparently civil contractors, not military personell) stationed at austrian air bases to enable some functionality is a big deal. This is a big deal because the wish-wash Austrian Neutrality is crucial to Austrian Identity.
How is it a big deal? If Austria wanted full access to NATO technology then they should have joined NATO. They chose not to, and now they have to accept the consequences of that choice. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.
It's the usual hypocrisy. There never was money for the military, neutrality ever popular and nobody thought about it back when things seemed more stable. Now that things are changing, it's a big deal. Maybe we join Nato, maybe Europe get it's own shit together. We'll see.
There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian reality is permanent. Politicians in Europe are still hoping that this is all a bad dream. So I guess the orders will somehow (by delaying payments, inventing some requirements, finding problems in deliveries that have to be endlessly discussed and fixed, ...) be delayed for 4 years. If the next president is still looking as anti-European as Trump, orders will for sure be cancelled.
"We are delaying our $N billion order until the administration ceases to act insane" would be quite a signal for big business elites in the US.
(Sadly, sanity of the opposite political party was / is also highly questionable.)
I doubt "until the administration ceases to act insane" is going to be enough. The current administration has proven to be untrustworthy, so nothing they say is going to restore trust in the US. On top of that, what guarantees could the US give that a future Trump 2.0 isn't going to break on their first day?
The problem is systemic: The US doesn't have a functioning democracy. FPTP, gerrymandering, unchecked campaign financing, the electoral college? It just isn't working, and the US is permanently stuck in a dysfunctional two-party system. If that doesn't get fixed (and let's be honest, it won't), the rest of the world won't be trusting the US until it can demonstrate a few decades of continuous trustworthy leadership after Trump is gone.
I think this is overly optimistic. Countries around the world can't build strategies around the US that will only hold when the Democrats are in power. Trump and the Republican party as a whole have thrown reliability out the window. Even if the GOP come to their senses and reject the America First ideology and pop their disinformation bubble the damage has still be done to the character of state. The only option for the US is to hold on to its power by sheer muscle power, but that will only last so long.
> There are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian reality is permanent
We have to assume that the US cannot be trusted as a military ally for at least the next 4 years. In fact, we have to be open to the possibility that they will be willing to be hostile. Including, but not limited to, extortion tactics. That's the hard baseline here.
We also have to be open to the possibility that the US either won't or can't have a proper election in 2028. And even if there is a proper election, that even a "sensible" president will not repair the damage.
What is already permanent is that Europe will never have the same level of trust in the US ever again. Perhaps some of it can grow back over a few decades, but the former level of trust will not return.
Still. None of the desired 800B of investment in defense equipment and technology can have US suppliers after the last couple of weeks. Even if the US eventually gets rid of this cancerous development.
Doubts? Maybe officially in PR statements, otherwise you would have to be mad to think this is temporary. Its as temporary as his lifespan. People with actual power are not that stupid anywhere.
I am not holding my breath that he will just walk away in 4 years, why would anybody be so naive? He thinks US constitution is an old toilet paper, its mememe. Look at what happened last time he was supposed to go out.
Trump has been here clearly signaling that a large portion of the US population does not support international military subsidies and Europe has done nearly nothing to prepare. Pushing forward a head-in-the-sand narrative is hugely detrimental to Europe’s independent future and requires a degree of blindness that is absurd
By "military subsidies" you mean US government money subsidizing US defense industry I assume?
Because that is where most of the money ends up when the US "supports" other countries. The US unloads weapons from its stockpiles (that need to be replaced at some point anyway) and then replenish the US stockpiles. This is both a huge injection of funds into US defense industry, and it takes care of the expensive problem of dealing with old ordnance.
US defense industry is going to be busy restocking the US stockpiles for a while longer.
If revenue were to soften before that, the Trump administration can distract from this reality by pumping more money into the industry short term. This may actually push the problem forward in time to the next president if they can keep pumping in enough money to hide the problem. It looks as if they are doing exactly this.
Of course, a few years down the line the defense industry will be in trouble as "consumer trust" is gone, Europe have ramped up their production and revenues will start to plummet.
Australia ought to start paying tribute to China instead of USA and invest in chinese subs rather than USA ones which will never be delivered anyway
Why? They can buy subs from France who was the other option when Australia was last shopping around.
The devil you know…
No one would ever trust China, not Vietnam, not anyone unwilling to take orders from them. The terms would be heavy.
Like all things it depends on the terms, in my mind though China would probably be incentivized to give us a good deal - Im sure they would be very amused delivering real hardware while the USA continues to demonstrate their incompetence at shipbuilding. It would also signal that Australia wants to sit out any USA/China war, which might be hard to do politically (which is maybe why Im not PM) but its certainly the position I hope Aus ends up taking should these 2 buffoons start a real blue
Eh. They aren't meant to be delivered for at least 5 years by which point US politics will have swung the other direction again.
Let’s switch suppliers a second time?
We need to pay the money to USA as tribute so its a write-off anyway, but I have low confidence we will ever see working hardware from it. However I bet China would actually prioritise delivery of some new subs if we pivoted to using them as our naval supplier, to win mindshare in the west as an alternative to America or Russia as an arms supplier. and we set up the next 100 years of paying off bigger countries to leave us alone, which honestly worked well enough the last 100 years
The European country best suited to support the F-35 is France. Which also isn't a member of the program due to that reason.
Won't that go against their homegrown Rafale fighter jet?
We're uniquely suited to not support the F-35. Not unless you swap out the engine for a Safran one, change the avionics for Dassault's, rip out the rest of the electronics for the Thalès stuff and replace the ordnance with MBDA's.
We'd keep the frame, but Serge Dassault and Charles de Gaulle would probably smite any French mechanic coming within 20 feet of a F-35 to do anything but dismantle one for its secrets.
Is there any other country in Europe that kept its own sovereignty like France? Maybe Sweden and Finland (if we do not consider nuclear cover)?
Sweden's Gripen is dependent on US engines...
It is not going to happen. There is no european manufacturer or a consortium that can build a similar airplane with comparable capabilities. They can't even match the F-22 which is more than two decades old.
The only way Europe can match Russia/China is to keep buying american made weapons. Maybe in 20-30 years the situation will be different and Europe will have the same capabilities of the US, but until then... buy, baby, buy!
I suspect it is going to be done to them.
It seems to me Donald is beheld in some way to Vladimir; what's being done now to my eye is too specifically about setting up UA for second RU invasion.
Donald then I think, step by step, is going to ally with Vladimir.
1. US aid to UA stops (done).
2. USA leaves NATO (on the way).
3. US troops in Europe leave or move to Hungary (floated).
4. Hungary is ejected from EU due to Orban obstructing everything he can.
5. Hungary becomes RU satellite state (maybe with many tens of thousand of US troops).
6. USA lifts its sanctions, placing it directly in conflict with Europe.
7. Donald invokes Insurrection Act, military units can now be used for civil policing (this is why top military brass and specifically top military lawyers removed).
8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
9. To "encourage peace", Donald now disables support for US weapon systems being used by Europe in UA. At this point, F-35 is history whether or not EU has dropped them or not.
10. Protests in USA, military used, people die, Donald suspends Constitution "to restore order and combat subversive elements".
11. No more elections. All court cases underway made irrelevant.
Read something of a similar bent here https://theradicalfederalist.substack.com/p/the-regimes-next...
Any suggestions on where in the world will remain relatively stable?
South America. Was peaceful in WW1 and WW2. In US sphere, but far enough away not to be messed about with much.
I will be going to UA, to fight with them.
The solution should probably be to go in and fight Russia immediately.
I think it's foolish to restrict operations to Ukraine though, and feel that the size of Russia is one of its main weaknesses. If there's to be a war, it should involve incursions into the US proper.
Or it doesn't happen like that
How do you think it will play out?
Anyone with a working memory of a couple of years remembers people like you who said a variety of excuses to the tune of "it won't be that bad", "you're exaggerating" and "it won't happen like that".
Of course, all of them were wrong. Short of WW3 between Europe and the US, many awful things that were predicted have come true. DT has severely weakened the USA, weakened the stock market, damaged US reputation and trust in the US army, dismantled many departments, put useless shills in most important positions, pulled out of Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, sucked up to Putin, and turned it all into a country that most people in Europe consider a hostile enemy (myself included).
So. For the sake of your fellow citizens, quit the excuses.
The result, and perhaps the definition, of the polarization problem is that every time something terrible happens, the responsible side would rather say "I love suffering, this feels great" than lose face in an imagined argument with the other side.
Not American, but provided US military has an oath towards the Constitution (and not to whatever the government claims), I doubt _all_ of US army would follow (either internally, either externally) such a brutal reversal of duty as well as alliances.
Duty is to the Constitution and the Commander in Chief. And alliances are at the discretion of the President. The military will do whatever they are told in terms of who the have to be friends with.
I know. That's the theory and mostly the practice.
Only, ask your military to return against your just previous allies (at your own initiative) among which the one that helped your very nation to fight for its independence, with which you did cross-training and exercises, for the past 80 years... everyone is in for quite a bumpy road.
I am reminded of North Africa in I think it was 1942.
France over-run by Germany. Gestapo at work, with all its horrors.
UK+US land in French North Africa, part of taking Africa from Germany, part in the long run of liberating France from horrors of occupation.
French soldiers fighting, killing and being killed by UK+US troops.
You mean the _Vichy_ French soldiers? that's quite a different situation than the allied French army :)
And, I was more thinking of the situation on American ground, within the USA and between the USA and Canada. I don't mean it wouldn't happen. I mean that I don't think that would happen with 100% engagement from all US army. The disconnect and reversal of strategy of the US, against its own allies, is too sudden.
They were French army, just as any other, only the part which was in North Africa when France fell.
My thought here was that armies can fight with the most brutal oppressors of their very own country, against those who would liberate it.
[dead]
> 8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA.
Given the size and battle experience of their armies I think that it's more probable that it's Ukraine that will cover Europe and not viceversa. And if they'll have to flee their country add a 12th point the UA army takes sanctuary in the EU that goes the way of Lebanon in the 70s when another army had to flee there.
Yes. Right now it's the EU which needs UA, and EU knows it; EU military is weak and has no idea how to fight with drones. UA military is strong and knows how to fight with drones.
If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.
This is why I think we see EU direct involvement in UA fighting; needed to keep UA up, and needed to get up to speed with drones.
> If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.
Do you have any numbers or analysis to back this up, please?
A few counterpoints:
- Russia failed to 'take' a relatively unprepared Ukraine, and arguably has only managed the gains it has made because the support (from Biden US and EU) was drip-fed according to the Biden team's strategy.
- Russia is haemorraging fighters and modern fighting machinery in the current war in Ukraine. It's unknown how much longer the loss of life can be sustained without internal unrest. The absence of modern machinery would obviously make an invasion of Europe less likely to succeed.
- While Russia might now be a "war economy" I've seen reports that they can't economically sustain the war for too much longer.
- While the EU certainty needs to invest in defence, some countries are already strong, and would likely fight to protect the collective.
Overall, this suggests that Russia would fail against a united Europe, were they to extend beyond a defeated Ukraine.
While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much western support. Ukraine would of course be in a much better position now if that support had been stronger and not been dribbled in.
Russia's economy is teetering and looks very weak now, but much of that is due to sanctions. Sanctions that trump will probably remove soon, for zero concessions. I'm not sure how effective EU sanctions will be on their own. Soon we will be seeing a much stronger Russia, already on a heavy war footing, start swallowing up a much weaker Ukraine. I don't like what might happen after that plays out.
> While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much western support.
But the western support was very small compared to actual western military capability.
I get that Trump is unpredictable from one moment to the next, and also that (at best) is strongly influenced when he speaks to Putin, but he's been consistently spoken and (just about) acted from anti-war and pro-peace-deal positions.
Wouldn't freeing up Russia through removal of sanctions and a refusal to engage militarily resulting in an escalation in Ukraine and potentially beyond into Europe be seen as a big failure of his position?
Nah, Swedish aerotech already out matches both Russia in terms of production capacity, arguably 6th if you ignore stealth, weapons range and weapons reliability. And already beats China in terms of technology, they're just now producing 5th gen airframes with copied tech, where Sweden isn't just following.
The EU without the US can already produce 5th gen, the selling point of the F35 was 6th gen compatible with 7th gen (NGAD).
Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters, because they can't get their bricks off the ground. Why would the EU want to copy the same mistakes of their enemy?
Swedish griphen e/d variants use an American engine. Possibly other avionics idk. So those will be grounded after few months into a conflict.
I expect a crash program to reengineer them has already started if only unofficially.
>Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters
Just like any other military including the US, no?
No, because the US could fly them, (assumedly), but doesn't. Where my understanding is Russia can't keep their fleet maintained let alone produce more. You don't use gorilla air tactics and bomb civilian infrastructure if you have other options. Russia is smart enough to know the value of winning hearts and minds, but they don't. Why not? Because they can't is the only reasonable conclusion I've seen
I don't have access to perfect information, but I find the reports that Russia is unable to maintain their entire fleet creditable, and believe and/or trust the experts who confirm this analysis.
As far as I know the US military still has more 4gen jets than 5gen.
Obviously Russia has no 5gen at all (or just a few 5gen Su-57, if we going to name them 5gen).
Anyway, my point is that as of now Russia has no need for gen5 and can't afford it anyway, just like about anyone else except for the US and a few countries that have them but at the same time have to rely on the US anyway.
Do you have any data to back this claim up? The Grippen looks awful.
If you look at the raw specs maybe. Grippen has a specific role which is starting and landing anywhere and being easy to support, both in manpower and materials. You can land a Grippen on any short stretch of paved ground, get it rearmed and ready to fly again in half an hour with 5 people. Whereas higher spec american jets like the F16 need very long, clean and straight runways, lots of support infrastructure, lots of personnel and have a long turnaround time. With the likes of F35 and F22 this is even worse.
Also, I believe reading raw plane specs these days is more like counting CPU GHz. It does not really matter anymore.
What matters these days is the cost of buying/flying/maintenance, software platform and what missiles they can launch.
Gripen has modular upgradable software, and supports modern Europe-made missiles such as Taurus and Meteor.
As other poster said, Gripen is perfect for a defensive role as a missile launch platform. It's not supposed to go 1:1 with F-35:s, but to counter the Russian air capability - and mostly in a defensive role. F-35:s were really great when they came with larger techno-military-political ecosystem but now the trust in that ecosystem is shattered.
The grippen looks amazing what are you talking about? Are we looking at the same plane? The high off boresight capability and meteor are top of class.
It is single engine and it is an ugly looking plane. The F22 looks like a spaceship compared to it in terms of looks and capabilities.
For the same reason I consider the F35 a failure.
Who cares if it’s ugly. Your priorities are mind boggling. You doubling down on that argument is comical.
Don't forget the F-35 is the best plane for the PREVIOUS war. The current and the NEXT war will be fought with drones. And Ukraine is one of the countries that has the best drone industry.
Maybe we (as a Pole living in Norway) can't have state of the art jets, but in practice don't need them?
We (as the whole eastern block - Scands, Balts, Poland, Romania and Ukraine) should cancel our orders of F-35 and focus on developing our drone and strategic missile industry. And focus on investing, developing and buying from our closest allies - the eastern block.
Not on the countries that don't care because they are either too far from Russia (Spain, Italy) or have vested geopolitical interest in alllying with them (Germany). France and UK might want to join to balance out Germany.
At least that's what I understand from hearing smarter than me discuss the current situation.
Which next war? The type of small, short range drones currently being used in Ukraine and Russia won't be of much use in a major regional conflict with China. Ranges will be orders of magnitude longer and communication links for drone control won't be reliable.
The main reason that Ukraine and Russia have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative. The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero) 5th generation aircraft that can survive in a contested environment. The F-35 was designed for that mission and would at least have a chance.
Have you seen that Chinese dragon made with drones they showed off during the NYE show? Now imagine them autonomous and every carrying a bomb. Even Phalanx will not help you. Bye bye aircraft carriers.
The next war could be a EU-Russia war though.
The only way this happens is if the EU goes full retard and sends troops to Ukraine.
Personally I oppose sending troops to the front in Ukraine, but for a different reason than others who oppose it: I believe that to send them to already fortified Russian positions is wasteful.
Consequently I believe that if the EU is to intervene, which I think is a very reasonable thing to do, it should be by imitiating the Russian approach of using aircraft as flying artillery-- i.e. to release missiles etc., against Russian positions in Ukraine, but I also believe that we should attack Russian natural gas pipelines, ammonia plants, nitric acid plants, ammunition plants with long-range weapons. I also believe that it's reasonable to send in ground troops to seize Russian and Belarusian territory in locations where it can be determined that Russia lacks artillery, tanks etc., and to in that way force troop movements, thus depleting the front in Ukraine and allowing Ukraine to basically roll it over.
I believe that this is possible for several reasons, among them that we Europeans are three times as many as the Russians. I believe that it is unlikely to lead to nuclear war because I believe that the Russians are rational and well aware that any nuclear use by them leads to a proportional nuclear use by 'us', whatever that means, and that the number of nuclear weapons in Russian control is irrelevant for the reason that they're gone after an exchange of a mere hundred or so, so that anything beyond that is superfluous.
> The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero)
I wouldn't call Russian AF "shit". The УМПК (JDAM) bombs crushed formidable defense of Avdeevka and now hit AFU hard in Sudja. Ka-52 helicopters stopped counteroffensive a year ago. Surely, sky is contested, but it's still important component that hurts Ukraine very hard.
> have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative
What would be an alternative to wing reconnaissance drones? What can hyper-equipped US armed forces offer as a replacement FPV and fiber-optics FPV attack drones? Yeah they have Reapers and other fancy expensive gear for the first 3-4 weeks of active war, then what?
The Russian air force is shit. They have zero capability to conduct close air support and have been reduced to launching stand-off weapons from within their own air defense coverage. This has some value but it's basically just another form of artillery. US tactical air capabilities are on an entirely different level.
The US has a variety of overlapping reconnaissance capabilities including not just large UAVs but also manned aircraft (including the F-35) and multiple satellite constellations. Over the next few years the priorities in that area should be to accelerate the B-21 Raider program (it will make an excellent recon platform) and develop some sort of prompt satellite launch capability to replace combat losses within hours. There is also a general recognition that we'll have to increase spending or shift budget priorities to build up the industrial capacity necessary to sustain longer conflicts.
Small DIY drones are only useful when no side has air superiority. Once you own the air, you can bomb and support ground troops a lot more efficiently.
The Rafale has claimed F-22 kills, but also consider that the competition here isn’t a straight up war against the United States but rather against Russia. As we’ve seen in the invasion of Ukraine, they don’t need advanced 6th generation fighters to handily best Russian forces using Soviet-era technology, and drones are FAR more significant in that kind of combat. Even if the F-35 was better at those types of missions, the high cost of the aircraft and support suggest that this might simply accelerate the shift away from human-piloted aircraft.
If your threat model did include a war within former NATO members, the F-35 is the worst possible choice so another way of thinking about this is that they should pick the best option which is actually available. That would mean things like swarm attacks and strikes on the airfields where those stealthy but extremely fragile planes are housed. Even if the public range is significantly low, they’d need a base closer than Greenland to strike European targets.
What exactly do you think are so special about American made products? The only reason that America’s allies have bought them in the past is because of Pax Americana. That’s about to end if not has ended already.
BAE Systems along with other European arms/aerospace manufacturers are perfectly capable of making competing products.
> America has been involved in a war or another pretty much continuously since the end of WWW2.
* correction: since 1776
> What exactly do you think are so special about American made products?
They are more battle-tested than any other. America has been involved in a war or another pretty much continuously since the end of WWW2.
Alongside its allies, mostly. Thanks JD.
Not that they’re going to be allies much longer.
Which allies fought alongside in every conflict the US participated in? With the exception of the blunders in Iraq and Aghanistan where everybody jumped on the “lets conquer faraway countries” bandwagon.
In Syria the US bombs things at their will, same in Somalia. In all Latin America conflicts the US went at it alone.
Honestly, go and look it up yourself, you’re not engaging in this thread constructively. You’re simply parroting MAGA talking points. I didn’t say “every”, I said “mostly”.
Maybe pay attention to Greece, Korea, Libya, Kosovo, Serbia, Yemen, Syria (1982), Iran, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, WW1, WW2
The fact that even as we bicker on this forum British and American forces are in Yemen pretty much says everything.
Very large amounts of continuous investment and battlefield testing since 1941.
There's no reason this can't be replicated by other rich nations but it won't be cheap or quick.
A good airplane from an unreliable supplier is not a good airplane.
Europe had no reason to spy on the US before, why shouldn't the EU produce a carbon copy of the F-35? There is already a plant making them in Germany. If the US is tearing up treaties then why can't the EU tear up their promise of not stealing military technology?
Absolutely every European country can make something better than a brick.
And there are high quality planes like the Rafale that aren't PaaS (Planes as a Service) where the owner can unilaterally stop you from using it.
You did read the article saying the US is not supplying "software updates" to the F16s and the planes themselves fly just fine, right?
I think the comment is in reaction to the F35 ones above it. Without activated software, these are bricks.
And no country wants to wake up to a set of bricks when they really need warplanes all of a sudden.
A plane without up to date countermeasures is not fit for purpose. They will be ineffective or even unusable in weeks.
Not to pile on but you say we should buy the F-35 to go toe to toe against Russia…
America is currently doing everything for Russia! If we actually used the F35 against Russia right now Trump would probably immediately do everything in his power to stop that, just like he’s exerting pressure everywhere else he can in Russias favour
Honestly I’ll personally be buying as little American as possible going forwards
Euro companies need to be moving off companies like Amazon swiftly, they’re under the boot of the new leadership. There’s a few years before even the current Russian leadership can change us rhetoric to be actively hostile to Europe, but it’s coming.
> under the boot
To me it looked like Bezos put the boot there himself, he seemed pretty enthusiastic about it.
Maybe trumpism simply empowered him., same result though - relying on US companies is a danger
There are three superpowers, only one of which has shown no hostility towards Europe. Draw your conclusions.
US, China, who else are you calling a superpower? Cause Russia is not a superpower.
It does not really change my argument, if you exclude Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment options Europe now has.
However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
FWIW, given everything else that we've seen from Russia in this undeclared(!) war, I'm moderately confident the Russian nukes and delivery mechanisms are sub-par.
(Typing "sub" reminded me of the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank itself…)
It needs only a few to launch successfully to engulf Europe in flames. So, even with subpar equipment, out of all of the 1700+ launch vehicles a few will still launch.
Kinda.
Some of the P(weapon failure) is constant: from what I hear, a certain fraction of Soviet and US systems (and presumably everyone else's) just don't work.
If that was all it was, then you would be correct.
But: some failures come with age, and require ongoing maintenance to retain function. For example, I expect all the tritium has decayed, and also that in many cases the money that was supposed to get spent replacing the tritium was instead spent on a fancy yacht or a football team or a seat in the UK's House of Lords etc.
And I don't know how good modern anti-missile weapons are, but I would expect them to have improved; conversely, despite Russia's talk about new hypersonic missiles, what they've shown hasn't been very impressive, and they've even used up some of their old nuclear-capable missiles while attacking Ukraine.
You are hopefully right but this is not a bet you ever want to have to make.
Quite.
I'm happy to be relaxed about this, but only because I have no power — 90% chance some attempted hot war is actually all duds is great for me personally, 10% chance everything burns is unacceptably high for someone running a country.
There is only one superpower - the US.
Russia and China are regional powers and can't project military power very far, excluding nukes. To do that you need a credible blue water navy. China is close though, and definitely projecting its economic strength.
Europe (lets just say EU + UK) could be a superpower. However they lack political unity. And still want big daddy US to do the heavy lifting.
There are two. Russia is not a super power.
Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty irrelevant country.
More like this: Two super powers, and a terror nukes nation.
It does not really change my argument, if you exclude Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment options Europe now has.
However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
When Putin can't take back Kursk, it seems odd to call Russia a super power.
But yes, agree with you about China.
Putin wants people to think Russia is a super power, when it's instead a corrupted inefficient mafia state. Look at research or startups coming from there (not much) or it's economy - the country is not interesting any longer (Putin has damaged it that much). Except for Putin attacking Ukraine, and his nukes and troll farms.
If Pakistan starts threatening other countries with nuclear war, and tries to invade a neighbor but mostly fails, is it then suddenly a super power?
Maybe "terror power" could be a new word
I wish the EU agreed with you. That would surely mean they would not want to go on a 800 billion Euro spend of my taxpayer money to deter an "irrelevant country".
Fundamentally, it's not just about Russia. It's about not being carved up by the US and China.
And you think a 1T EUR will move the needle significantly to maybe deter this?
China is a economic superpower but not a military one, at least not yet. Their blue water navy is not credible.
> Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty irrelevant country.
Clearly, it's not irrelevant if it's been able to drive a wedge between the US and Europe like this.
Yes, that's why the U.S. wants to control Arctic trade routes from China to Europe.
The Ukraine war was "successful" in destroying the possibility of railways between the EU and China.
The EU, ever the good vassal, now ramps up the rhetoric against Russia which is exactly what Hegseth wanted in the open.
The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater.
If the above conjectures are wrong and Trump is serious about peace with Russia, then the EU needs to pivot quickly to China and at least maintain reasonable diplomatic relations with Russia.
> The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater.
I find that becoming exceedingly unlikely. Trust has been destroyed, there is no easy recovery from that.
So many odd things have been occurring in the past month that I don't know what to believe any longer.
First, ex-neocon Rubio admitted on the Megyn Kelly show that the world is now multi-polar. Even if he believes that, why would he say so unless it's for show.
Then there is Lindsey Graham. In 2016 he gave warlike speeches to the Azov Batallion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4e1A-LZEA
In 2025 he throws Zelensky under the bus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18oqMGLWcRA
Graham and probably Rubio are still neocons. Trump must be really powerful to keep all this under control.
Then there is the U.S. arms lobby, which is uncannily quiet even though they'll lose a ton of business when NATO becomes irrelevant. Then there are no reactions to Polish nuclear ambitions, which is weird unless the whole thing is scripted.
So there are two theories. Either Trump is carving up the world or he is acting.
Elon Musk threatens to spend millions against any republican who deviates from Trump’s policies. Without that threat, the republicans would speak up against this assault on American interest and values. I wonder more if Elon has been compromised than Trump. Or if Russia threaten to trigger the Kessler syndrome, destroying all of Elon’s aspirations of getting off this rock (I’m still skeptical if he’s telling the truth about that), and instructed him to stop the war.
Any warplane that _works_ has comparable, nay even better capabilities than a brick.
It may kill human piloted powered combat aircraft in favor of missiles and drones
That’s what I expect: long careers in NATO for Ukrainian veterans who can extrapolate from the high-point of USA and Russian arms.
Drones can't replace a human in the cockpit. Remote piloted are subject to EW. Autonomous are not quite there yet. May be in ten years, maybe not.
given the extreme 'benefits' of autonomous weapons (cheap, can be produced in arbitrary numbers, easier logistics, fewer parents mourning their children in your country, vastly easier production), we should expect them to be fielded before they are really ready.
But the F-35 is functionally useless. If Russia, being the only threat to Europe invades, the US will shut down the F-35s.
I mean, if any other country spent 700+ billion a year on corporate welfare to defence contractors they’d have some impressive tech too.
If nobody wants to buy any of that shit because of the knock-on effects of Trump’s self-sabotage and they start investing elsewhere, then those defence companies will sooner distance themselves from the US as well. Unless they’re in on whatever the administration is cooking up the money is still going to speak louder.
No, thank you we are not idiots. Out fighters are just fine, as long as we don't have to fight US.
BTW you don't seem to understand military well - F22 is much better plane than F35, but abysmally complex to do and expensive, thats why the low numbers. F35 has way too many compromises ie for us navy.
Also, as Ukraine war shows fighter jets are not that important for waging war if situation is more like peer vs peer, and not US blowing shepherds and weddings into pieces. Sure, they lob a bomb or two, sometimes launch a rocket but all from as much distance as possible. What wins such wars these days is artillery, massive amount of infantry and millions of various drones.
Canada’s largest newspaper published an opinion piece [0] calling for the cancellation of F-35 purchases. The article calls out source code availability in its argument.
[0] https://archive.is/2LLkO
Europe does not produce a 5th gen fighter. By the time they get one out, the big three will have 6th gen fighters.
Europe is developing 6th Gen fighter(s) already though. And yes, Europe produces a 5th Gen fighter. The f35 is made only in USA and Italy, although I share the worries on having a potentially brickable device
5th gen is a nonsense marketing term. It is far less about the plane itself and more about how it integrates into a force. This is why russian figthers are pretty useless: they are not integrated with the rest of the force and they lack coordination. The russians do not even have the ability to discriminate between their own planes and enemy planes when making decisions to launch AA missiles.
But if the EU has no 5th gen fighters then they'd have a hard time maintaining Air Superiority against Russia if they manage to mass produce Su-57 or Su-75 and I am betting the Russian can do it before EU can have 5th gen fighters or FCAS.
I think Russian capabilities depends almost entirely on who the US and China are willing to sell weapons to — Russia has huge corruption problems, arguably this is why they were dumb enough to not only start a war but also why they weren't able to actually pull off a blitzkrieg against Ukraine, so I don't think Russia will be able to combine high volume and high quality for anything any time soon.
EU industrial capabilities may also have issues, but they are (mostly) different ones than Russia faces.
The biggest Russian fuckup in this war was to put their elite soldiers in one plane for Hostomel Airport without knowing that Ukraine had SAMs in position and enough intelligence to know this was coming.
After that the Russian "elite" units were elite in name only.
This was in hour 8 of the war and it's worth bearing in mind that this war could have gone very, very differently.
I don't know where you got this myth from. Extermination of elite VDV units was not just one plane shot down.
There were many russian helicopters successfully landing at Hostomel, the area saw heavy fighting for several days until it was under Ukrainian control.
> The Russian Il-76s carrying reinforcements could not land; they were possibly forced to return to Russia.[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport
Rumors of an Il-76 downed close to Vasylkiv did not prove to be true:
> Claims have been made that Ukrainian aircraft shot down two Russian Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft transporting assault troops.[33][124][34] However, The Guardian reports "no convincing public evidence has surfaced about the two downed planes, or about a drop of paratroopers in Vasylkiv".[125]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_front_of_the_Russian_...
Real life isn’t a movie, one aircraft worth of people isn’t going to do that much.
It annihilated the VDV.
Or, airborne in name only nowadays.
And? It also took out a useful aircraft which could have been more significant over the war.
No, but them taking and holding the airport close to Ukraine's seat of government would have done a lot.
Now you’re assuming quite a bit more than just a handful of troupes surviving. Such as them being able to get to an airport when there’s air defenses in the way. Being able to reinforce those troupes quickly again through air defenses etc.
Within a narrative such as loss of elite troops would definitely have some serious impact. In the context of a war the loss of the aircraft could easily be more significant.
The videos of the Russian troops at Hostomel are on Youtube. As a commenter above mentioned, they were there to allow troop transports to land and eventually be connected to the tank column coming south from Belarus.
Sure that was a plan, but it turns such movements of tanks proved very detrimental to Russia.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking if only X, but war is complicated. It’s possible Russia would have been worse off because they tried to use those VDV soldiers in a plan that disastrously failed. It’s slightly more likely that they would have been a small net benefit, but chances are things would look more or less identical today with or without them.
My guy, the dismissive tone of "it's not an action movie" while backpedaling to "tut tut, sure that might have been their specific plan but have you considered unintended consequences" is too much for me.
I’m sorry if reality is too much for you.
Saying doing X wouldn’t have mattered is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal here. Ukraine not using a missile for attacking that aircraft means they could have used it to attack a different aircraft. Similarly Russia got to use all forces in that plan not destroyed with the aircraft in some other plan.
That’s not backpedaling that’s just the inherent complexities involved.
Have a good day.
Sure, have a good day.
Yeah a lot of RU dismissing here.
Whatever shit tier RU MIC/performance has been, it has manage to consistently defeat or mitigate what US+EU has thrown against her. Which includes highend gear like PAC3 MSE. Meanwhile half the reason RU had a hard time was due to facing UKR's abundant legacy USSR systems. At this point it's not unreasonable to dismiss everything in EU arsenal as wunderwaffe tier especially without US support. Including F35... which even if US doesn't restrict usage against EU-RU scenario, could still be borderline paperweight without US tier ISR.
People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117 barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago.
IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what that entails for IndoPac). They'd rather see RU hit F35s in hangers with standoff munitions because at least they can point to JP and SKR and say, see, you need to build harden air shelters.
Where are you getting this from? There certainly has been some exaggeration online and in the media about the capabilities of western military hardware, especially tanks. But that doesn't mean they were bad, just that they are far from invulnerable. And there are quite a few examples where they saved the soldiers inside when a Russian tank would have tossed their turret.
Patriot works in Ukraine, they even got a few Khinzal. But of course any air defense is limited by available ammo and you need enough of the right kind of air defense in the right places for this to work well. The Ukraine is really limited by the number of available systems and ammunition. And for something like the Shahed drones you need other ways to defend yourself to avoid exhausting your precious ammunition for advanced air defense systems.
Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat aging European cruise missiles were able to easily penetrate current Russian air defenses.
> Russia also was shown to be nearly unable to intercept Storm Shadow/SCALP EG at the beginning. So the somewhat aging European cruise missiles were able to easily penetrate current Russian air defenses.
Most likely because they did not have the specs or complete specs for them and how they looked like on radar. There was an article somewhere that I can't find right now where something like this was said: Once a new weapon system is employed against RU or by RU against UA, it takes about two weeks to create countermeasures for it.
"Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago."
We are seeing Ukrainians regularly hitting russian redars and air defence. Whatever nato wasn't able to do in hte 90s the Ukrainians are fully capable of doing today, because they are doing it. And with lots of european help. So this is just outdated speculation you're doing.
> People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117 barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago
Likewise the reason why Russia couldn't steamroll Ukraine swiftly is because Ukraine anti air is very formidable (using Soviet hardware no less). That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak.
> That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak.
russia is weaker than they have been since 1991, possibly 1950.
There is a reason they are now delivering ammo using mules and actually attempting old school cavalry charges on horseback.
And it it's not because donkeys are better than the armoured, tracked towing tractors or because actual horses are better than tanks.
>horses are better than tanks
There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely because they're situationally better than tanks in certain combat conditions. For the same reason everyone is zipping around in dirt bikes and golf carts or UKR retiring M1 tanks from frontlines. Look up survivability onion, tanks/armor get detected and destroyed because they're too visible vs modern frontline battlefield recon. If you want to survive, have to move to smaller/more agile platforms to avoid detection in the first place. RU and UKR are both learning and adapting. It's reflection that last 50 years of doctorine is obsolete, aka everything EU military also hedged on. If shit ever hits the fan, NATO maybe donkeying as well.
> aka everything EU military also hedged on
I don't think that's true. As an example, Finland and French doctrine are very different. It's easier to test all Euopean nations diffrent doctrine and choose what works best (especially if countries from the Balkans add their grain of salt)
Imho that's where European defense industry (as a whole) is interesting. Because you have 5 competing IFV designs (well, over 15, but really, 5 different design that does different things). You also have multiple tanks (and AMX-10s), as well as a bunch of different drone constructors. Even in gun design you have multiple choices, andh while optics and optrionics are Thales', overall equipements are extremely distributed. Europe might find itself on the backfoot in case of an engagement, but i'm pretty sure it would bounce back quickly.
"French doctrine" Is this a joke ?
Have my upvote, good reasoning.
Still sources like Covert Cabal and others do make me think it isn't only a tactical consideration the russians have made but also a reflection of the fact that they very much do see the end of their stockpile.
The ISR environment is pretty saturated. Practically there's not much you can do to avoid detection.
I agree that mules / horses are better in certain situations, and not even considering cost. I believe even US 10th Mountain division still uses them
Overall your points are valid, but:
> There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely because they're situationally better than tanks in certain combat conditions.
It's a war of attrition, both sides are using whatever they can lay their hands on at this point.
You really make the best point here. End of the day, the 1986-style WW2++ strategy is dead. Manned air superiority outside of the third world is dead.
The Russian failure is the exemplar. They were re-waging WW2, and they have little more than a lot of cooked tankers to show for it. Now we’re rolling with throwing prisoners into trenches to stop the maneuver warfare, because they can’t maneuver.
The US is probably in as bad of a condition. Given the poor performance of air power in Ukraine and the Trump/Putin driven destruction of world alignment, US naval power is questionable. Aircraft carriers will become ineffective as modern SAMs are sold on the market. Our submarine platforms are old, manufacturing is barely operational, and we’ll probably fire key individuals if we haven’t already.
Aircraft carriers were always a joke in a US vs. Soviet conflict. A carrier will help with third-world enemies that cannot threaten it. However, the Soviet Union had capable submarine forces as well as ship-launched (e.g. from Kirov class cruisers) as well as air-launched anti-ship missiles which in numbers can overwhelm the carriers air defense screen.
In WW3 the role of an aircraft carrier is to launch its airplanes exactly once, before it is sunk.
if donkey are superior, then explain why only after 3 years Putin used them, was Putin keeping them in reserve for the Berlin attack?
Let's be fair here. If we rightly mock all the silly *pravda sites, the mules aren't exactly reported in the serious press either.
It seems more likely that mules were used where they make sense: Supplying ammo to a trench deeply in the forest, where mules are the superior "technology". Then that observation was blown out of proportion.
Remember that "the Russians are fighting with shovels" was a slogan in 2022.
One problem with the digital age is you can find news to support any view, regardless of how disconnected from reality it may be. And enough people to echo such that one may not realize how ridiculous they sound.
> IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what that entails for IndoPac)
Israel's F-35 have being going in and out of Iran's airspace with impunity, so no, I don't think that is going to be an issue.
Russia doesn’t have air superiority in Ukraine and they chose the time and place of the war.
That's the thing - having F-35s doesn't mean any more you actually have them, even though you paid through your teeth for them.
So, F-35 Kindle edition.
Sounds like Kindle books.
The Russian aviation industry has a terrible track record on delivering new aircraft.
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the Russian can improve the track record faster than the EU develops 5th gen fighters.
Thankfully, Russia doesn't really have 5th Gen either. Europe has a lot of solid 4+ gen planes: Rafale, Eurofighter, maybe Gripen. And I'm willing to guess that, especially with better trained pilots, these are potentially better than Russia's assortment.
But there remains a question of quantity and determination.
The surviving Russian pilots are pretty competent at this point.
The surviving Russian pilots fly towards the front line at a high altitude until they get close to the suspected range of Ukrainian air defences, drop glide bombs and then turn around. Sometimes the Ukrainians have snuck an air defence unit closer to the front lines without it being detected and the pilots exit the category of surviving Russian pilots.
I'm not sure how applicable this would be to a confrontation with European countries. Russian fighters will get getting lots of flight hours on CAP as well, but not much combat based on reporting. Both sides are keeping everything inside their own AD bubbles.
Sure, but that risk is just something Europe has to eat as punishment for buying F-35 instead of building their own, it doesn't affect the new reality that US aircraft cannot be trusted in wartime.
I'm highlighting more about EU conundrum here and I'm still amused that they still have energy to pick up fight with say China.
So far their 5th generation fighter program has been an even worse embarrassement than the T14 Armata.
Their own press photos shows uncovered Philips screws on a supposedly stealth aircraft, and their "loyal wingman" drone used the first opportunity near the frontlines to try to defect.
Russia already lost Su-57 in Ukraine when ukrainians didn't even had F-16.
If.
They have less than 30 airframes, probably 30-40% have some level of operational airworthiness.
The Russians get a lot of glazing on social media about military prowess. The reality is they’re fighting a tiny, poor country, got their asses kicked early on when nobody was really helping Ukraine substantially, mostly by virtue of their own incompetence.
The Russians version of the USAF is their information operations. They’ve helped to nurture right wing shitheads in the US for decades culminating in two freakshow presidential administrations. They’ve done the same in Germany in the former GDR and in the UK with the leave wankers.
Good, can we skip the 5th gen and move towards autonomous aerial systems faster?
> Russia if they manage to mass produce Su-57 or Su-75
They can only do that if US provides them with required components
oh wait...
I'm willing to bet they can do it with possible financial assistance from India (they need 5th gen fighters too) and generic chips from China.
P.S. Many mocked Russian munitions came with chips made by Texas Instruments among others, but thing is those chips are so damn generic you can get that from random shops in Shenzhen.
India already got burned.
Their previous orders have still not been delivered since they were sent to the frontlines in Ukraine.
I doubt India will want to repeat that.
Not many options for India. F-35 is also very risky and unclear delivery date, not to mention they also got burned by delayed F414 engines delivery for their Tejas.
With rumours of Pakistan getting J-35, 5th Gen fighters are necessity I guess.
Besides they can force Russian to manufacture them in India like Su-30 MKI.
I don’t know how much it’s worth but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...:
“On 27 May 2006, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that "Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft." In December 2006, an agreement was signed which met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access to software source code and operational sovereignty. The agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for operation of the aircraft.”
When things get serious agreement is not going to help (case in point: Budapest Memorandum - from which ever angle).
If you can't make every part of the plane it's not really yours.
While I doubt that it solves all the issue, subcontractors, imported parts and so on, but the Italian F-35s are build be Leonardo in Cameri in Italy. How long would it take BAE, SAAB or Leonardo to un-brick an F-35?
Again, not ideal, but the first F-35 have been delivered an need to be serviced and maintained until they can be replaced,... or maybe just until the next US election.
I'd expect the original agreements that were put in place--both the ones with the subcontractors as well as the purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can do with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
The original article suggests that Ukraine may end up having to replace the electronic countermeasures hardware to get around this in the future, so I'd expect any attempts to "un-brick"/work around the lack of support will eventually be along those lines, even if it results in some performance degradation.
No matter how they approach this, it's going to be a horrifically difficult and expensive task.
0. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-us-to-withho...
> Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
the UK made access to the source code a condition of purchase, and the technology transfer agreement was signed
in a hypothetical scenario where the US federal government falls under the direct control of a russian asset, I imagine this would end up in our allies hands reasonably quickly
I expect knowing this new f35 deliveries will have hardware just different enough to need new software.
Move a few flags around in a few registers and for all practical purposes it’s stuck.
> I'd expect the original agreements that were put in place--both the ones with the subcontractors as well as the purchase agreements--are quite strict on what you can do with the plane. Trying to reverse engineer software (the policy was that no one gets access to the original source code for the F-35[0], at least back in 2009) is probably a no-go under those agreements.
We're talking about Europe being able to protect itself from a potential Russian invasion despite the US bricking their F35s, and your argument is that they'd have to bend or break an agreement?
I don't think that's a big hurdle, in that eventuality.
(Reminds me a touch of this, though: :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo )
> The original article suggests that Ukraine may end up having to replace the electronic countermeasures hardware
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43307996#43309468 Replacing the jammers shouldn't be "horrifically difficult", might still be expensive though.
Hardware is not the issue. The US strictly controls the software whence many differentiated capabilities of the aircraft come. This includes a lot of secret computer science R&D that no one has access to. Countries were buying it for the advanced software.
Can they reverse engineer it?
I think there’s an interesting question about how important updates are: say they unbrick it, how often do you have before there’s some change you’d actually want to have but it’s no longer easily available? This feels like the much higher-stakes version of people trying to jailbreak phones without losing security updates.
It would very much so be a stopgap. Long term it's a security risk, but it's also a risk to not be able to fly your plane tomorrow.
Yeah, no good options in this scenario. I would be very worried that there’s a kill switch you haven’t uncovered.
Depends on the used cryptography, could be months or decades.
Will there be next US elections?
Next national elections are the midterms in November 2026 with a new house and senate taking over in Jan 2027, 22 months time.
If the American people want to shift track they have the opportunity to actually elect a Congress which will do something.
If not it’s November 2028 for the next presidential election. Trump (if he’s still alive - he’s not exactly young or healthy) won’t be able to stand for a third term unless a constitutional ammendment is past
> Trump (if he’s
It is not just about Trump.
MAGA is essentially a personality cult. There will be a massive power vacuum once Trump leaves the stage, and I doubt any fraction will be big enough to whip the kind of unwavering loyalty we're seeing today.
Typically in these situations you get infighting, splintering and general collapse of the movement.
The question is will it happen soon enough to mitigate some of the damage.
UK and Israel have a deal where they can replace the software or some such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNPCk-fd8I
The Israelis weren’t given a choice in the matter. The challenge is that parts of the software required for some key capabilities use advanced computer science R&D that is not in the literature.
You can fly the airframe but there is a significant reduction in capability unless you can also produce equivalent algorithms and data processing technology.
I have a copy of the original cognitive radar papers. You can find most of them, the real work is doing a real world implementation.
I’m not aware of any computer science breakthroughs required for the f35.
The cognitive radar stuff is old tech. I don’t think that concept is really considered a differentiated capability beyond being a sophisticated implementation.
Almost by definition, any classified computer science research would be non-obvious.
The Mossad is great at industrial espionage, and as the US gov alienates and lets “big balls” exfiltrate critical information, they’ll probably see advancements.
Probably don't even need to work that hard. The Saudis got a bunch of nuclear secrets the first round so I am sure F35 info can be brought to Mar a lago.
F-35 going off the menu means the two Brit aircraft carriers have no aircraft.
Lol Royal Navy would soon have more admirals than military hardwares.
"their S-300 systems and Sukhois against their maker" by "thier" you of course mean every single last operational legacy system from the former soviet block and customers.....so all of those ,ummmm, suppliers, are now realising the worth of the promesary "upgrades" they got for thier systems, plus knowing that even glancing east, is not going to go well, and that central europe now has them....."(insert unpleasant imagery here)" Trump been at this?, what 50 days? whole classes of sinecures getting shut down, no end in site
I have friends working on the French Rafale. Really expensive plane, mildly successful so far.
They are really busy right now.
Ironically India's decision to go with Rafale looks great in the current circumstances.
> this is like Brexit but 1000x
This sums up what I've been thinking too - it looks like the USA is sick of being the center of the world and is stepping down from the position right now.
I guess this means it's China's moment. :/
Warehouse 14 time
What's warehouse 14?
TV series warehouse 13, which houses all the world’s “odd” artifacts. The warehouse was always in the strongest empire through history, it moved itself when world order changes - warehouse 12 was in the U.K. up until the 20th century for example.
The finale had it trying to love itself to China and becoming warehouse 14, but that eventually stopped and American Superiority won over.
Those days seem at an end. The actions Trump had made over the last two months will reverberate for the next two decades at least.
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Post the rest of the quote. If I recall he was warning against alienating an ally. He didn't want the quote to become true.
Yes, he was basically warning that short termism, and constantly throwing people under the bus, will be bad for American imperialism in the long term.
"Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
Thieu did meet the same fate, well, he wasn't killed, but he was overthrown and lived life in exile as a recluse.
Zelenskyy will almost certainly suffer the same fate.
The agenda that Trump advanced during campaigns was not "cut ourselves off from the rest of the world". Do his supporters really want this? What's the rationale he advances for this stance and the tarrifs?
What would a president who was beholden to Russians do once elected? I mean -- what's the point of provoking Canada, of all countries? Canada as the 51st US state would be the new most populous state and would cause a huge change in US politics. Not to mention it could only arrive through conquest. So why even propose it if not merely to cause a rift?
> Do his supporters really want this?
After many long discussions, I can only conclude it less about the values of the supporters and more about their psychology.
His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means that the right people get bullied. There's not much deeper thought than that.
It's very sad to see people that I respected debase their own principles so that they can remain proud Trump supporters. Their identity appears tied to the decision, and I know only one person who had the principles to to respond to any of Trump's actions with "OK these people actually have no clue what they are doing." (Which was in response to their treatment of Zelensky in the Oval Office).
>His supporters want whatever he wants, as long as it means that the right people get bullied.
Yeah, pretty much. Everyone in this thread should be able to craft a Trump line that's easily digestible by his base on this point by now. In this specific case it's "I don't want to give US weapons to anyone who won't act in our (my) national interest on every issue." Once you empower him to decide what is or is not in the US national interest, there's not much you need in the way of convincing. It's only when his policies start hurting his voters individually that they'll maybe start questioning whether what Trump claims is American national interest is actually in their own interest or not.
> Do his supporters really want this?
That's like asking whether a child wants the sugar crash that will come after eating the candy bar. They're not able to see that far ahead. They'll only "get it" when their lives have been made significantly harder, and even then it's not likely they'll be able to attribute their misery to the administration's policies--they could very easily be convinced to blame some minority group or foreign nation.
The supporters are just a rabble bought into a cult of personality. If they know what they think, it doesn’t matter.
The point of all of this is the chaos and destruction of trust in the system. A concept in the early stages of the Russian revolution was that the stage had to be set for a “spark” to light the tinder of the proletariat. Here the Russians had RT, probably fed talking points and material to talk radio and podcast people. Had honeypots seducing strategic politicans and special interests (See Maria Butina and the NRA). Obviously wields influence over Trump.
Once that tinder has been set, the sparks some in the chaos. You have the religious weirdos who think dinosaurs are fake, Elon who believes he’s the protagonist in a sci-fi fantasy, some war-hawks pushing the Artic Dominance thing, and whatever fuckery the gang of oligarchs like Theil, etc have in mind.
Not sure about Canada, but Trump's actions will make a lot more sense if you consider that to American rightists, American leftists are a much bigger enemy than Russians. I think the same is true in the opposite direction. These 2 groups can't stand each other and often sabotage the other's efforts. We can put that aside and ask what's best for the world or America, but as long as there is this hatred between the parties in the US, both sides will act primarily against the other.
> to American rightists, American leftists are a much bigger enemy than Russians.
This reminds me of France in the Second World War. My (questionable) understanding is that they were more worried about the enemies at home than the ones across the border.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you really expect that Putin will not expand the war if a cease fire is signed?
Assuming you are a not a bot, you are the example of the kind of useful idiot that is a part of what you try to brush off.
You probably can’t name 5 things that the Green Party stands for and how they align with Jill Stein.
[flagged]
Like the forever war in the middle east?
The agenda was to leave Ukraine and to have Europe pay for its own defence which is what’s happening here. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t let yourself get manipulated by Reddit-tier arguments.
It goes beyond that:
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go US sides with Russia in UN resolutions on Ukraine (the US rejected a resolution that named Russia as the aggressor).
- https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrai... The US is ending support for Ukrainian F-16
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cuts-off-intelligence-shari... US cuts intelligence sharing for Ukraine, adding pressure for Russia peace deal
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-08/us-vetoes... US Vetoes G-7 Shadow Fleet Task Force Plan
There's a pattern: Trump wants to force a capitulation of Ukraine.
> leave Ukraine
The United States was never "in Ukraine" in at all the same way it was in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were never American combat boots on the ground.
This is actually true, no need for political downvoting.
It's just the way it's done, quite childish and not ally-like. Pulling out from EU and UA could've been done in much less 'rug-pulling' style.
The agenda is to abandon US allies and let Russia expand however it wants, because that's what Putin wants. Putin wants to erase the Ukrainian cultural identity, which is what Russia has tried to do for centuries.
A week ago Trump killed the western alliance when he made it clear that allies could not rely on the US. This week he has killed the US weapons export business. Not a single country will trust them now. It would be quite an interesting thing to watch if we didn't have to live here.
He also may have killed US agriculture, we'll find out in the next few months.
*They can’t rely on USA and the American tax payer for the defense of their country. Finally some defense spending will have to take place
Even accepting that as true (it’s not — it’s the cost of having soft-power in Europe.) it means that no European, and probably Turkish, Korean, Japanese and Canadian cash will be flowing to the USA defence industry.
The spending that happens, though, will not be flowing to the US like a very large share has in the past.
They can't rely on weapons that they have bought from US defense manufacturers
Europe has spent trillions on defence since the fall of the Berlin Wall, most of which went to US weapons manufacturers.
What the last decade has shows is relying on external oligarchs for energy and defence is not sensible. The us has encouraged this for a long time. I just hope that Europe actually steps up quickly enough.
It will hurt the us a lot more than Europe, and China will be massively emboldened in the Pacific. It’s a new world order.
Spending among NATO member nations had already started growing considerably since Trump's first term. And a lot of that spending went towards buying US made weapons, though not exclusively.
With this move, any nation will think twice about buying US made weapons. Trump effectively kneecapped the US arms industry by this move.
> Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating non-US alternatives.
I don't know anything about fighter jets but for a lot of other things, Trump could not have done a nicer thing for China. Whatever issues many countries had with China, they are not actively beating most of them in the face. Probably the best years for Xi these are going to be.
On the heels of 40-year old American kit demonstrating its capability against their biggest arms export competitor. What a reversal.
That is good. Don't know why you are saying in mocking way. We should move away from unipolar world. There should be stronger US, Europe, Asia, Africa like everyone. Monopoly is bad.
It’s “great” in the sense that this will decimate the US military industry (great or “great” depending on your view of American hegemony). China and Europe will be stronger, and America is absolutely finished as a world power.
So much winning, eh?
Europe has had 20 summits and talks about what they plan to plan to plan to do… eventually. USA will be fine.
Weapons procurement expenses has been shooting up in Europe, I do not get why you only talk about the spoken plans and not the actual things that eventually happens after these plan are designed.
Just a few days ago, Leonardo signed a treaty to develop uavs together with Baykar. A month or so ago, Italian government announced the creation of a joint venture between rheinmetall and Leonardo, sharing technologies to Leonardo and producing some of the >1000 ifvs to buy for the italian army in italy and some in Germany
I cant wait for the inevitable EU sanctions against the US.
And you know who we call that lone vessel on the ocean of prosperity?
Bob.
There is actually a psychiatric disorder (from an Oliver Sacks book) where the patient wakes up one day with a terrible conviction that their own healthy limbs are not theirs, and with an overwhelming urge to amputate them. Sometimes it's so distressing that amputation is actually done.
This kind of happened to the US.
Great analogy!
"Body integrity identity disorder (BIID), or body integrity dysphoria, is a mental health condition where you feel that a limb or healthy body part shouldn’t be part of your body."
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/body-integrit...
While I agree with you, I think the problem goes beyond military equipment. There’s a lot of risk now in doing business with America in every field, because it’s so unpredictable. Why get cloud or SaaS from the US if they’re one executive order away from being forced to break the GDPR — or shut off service completely, like Maxar in Ukraine. Why build supply chains through America if the price of raw materials can arbitrarily change with tariffs? Sure, it’s a huge market to sell to, but all of those risks have real costs.
I was thinking the same thing. Europe should build its own cloud. All purchased US goods and services are now a potential target for a match of arm wrestling.
Yes, I agree. There was a view that Trump is at least transactional - that so long as you pay (NATO defense spending target, US weapons etc) he'll have your back,.in a subscription basis. Likewise outside defense I guess.
But that's going up in smoke rather quickly.
Yes, exactly.
I'm beginning to think that being somewhat reined in by the Republican establishment in his first term, a weakness that the MAGA-crowd sought to correct, ultimately worked in his favor in protecting him from his poor instincts.
It's like he doesn't understand that trust and reliability have a real, tangible value. That's simply a misjudgment. Maybe he actually believes that America is so exceptionally strong that any sort of cooperation ultimately works against it?
It's terribly sad and depressing frankly. A small part of me still has hope that this is going to end badly, in that it turns into a useful lesson, but not badly enough to cause lasting damage. I might be naive.
We’re only seven weeks in, and the damage so far will probably take a decade to fix. I’m not as optimistic as you about the remaining 201 weeks — if that in fact is the number.
The word for what you describe is racketeering.
Trump is still transactional, but now the transaction is with Russia
It's not a matter of risk, it's done.
I work in IT. We already have several customers projects (various profiles) that paused all their ongoing projects to _start_ migrating their servers and hosted services away from US-based/owned ones towards EU-based ones.
>There’s a lot of risk now in doing business with America in every field, because it’s so unpredictable.
That's how the rest of the world has been doing business with America, Europe will get used to this too.
The best era ever to be selling French of German arms.
> Right now every buyer of American kit is feverishly evaluating non-US alternatives.
they are doing what they should've been doing this whole time?
Does Europe lessening their desire to buy US-designed and US-made military hardware benefit or harm the US?
Extend this to other areas of commerce. If the US is no longer a reliable trade partner and its allies lessen their economic ties, is that a positive outcome for the US?
It's a big advantage if allies use compatible or identical kit.
[dead]
Trump and Biden have shown that the US is an unreliable partner, and that it is no longer going to provide security guarantees when it is really needed.
If I was a foreign leader, I would immediately consider building nuclear deterrence of some sort, and find alternatives to US weapons.
Biden's 'minor incursion' remarks, giving Putin the go ahead for round 2 in 2022:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/ukra...
More countries are already considering building nuclear deterrence for the past month or so.
I think you need to reassess your instrumental subgoals, because this isn’t a game you can win by owning the libs: if Trump fucks the US hard enough, your life is still gonna suck even if everyone blames Biden and hates democrats.
Ukraine wasn’t a buyer. They were given those F16s. Be careful when something is given for “free”.
The Netherlands for instance, who gave Ukraine a batch of F16s _was_ a buyer. Logic still stands, US made anything is worthless if it includes a kill switch that can be toggled any time post-purchase.
Good point, but I wonder if there was something in the agreement between the US and the Netherlands when those were originally sold.
They all create export agreements where countries have to seek permission to reexport and more. Usually for political plays.
It's also the same reason the Swiss defense industry is now in collapse. Because they refused to allow re-export of ammo to Ukraine citing Swiss neutrality.
It immediately made all Swiss made ammo worthless for all european countries in event of war. Lol
Apparently the Swiss are still talking of revising their law while their defense industry is crying because nobody wants to buy their shit as European countries want to be able to help other European countries. Especially circles like the Nordic or Baltic regions where the countries are extremely buddy buddy.
Some sources on this:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/is-the-swiss-we...
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/the-cost-of-neutrality-s...
Sounds like the statement that if an online service is free, you are the product, when in reality the same applies to paying customers as well. You are only exempt if you have full control over it.
It doesn’t matter who owns these planes, the US have shown that they have the power to make them useless and that they cannot be trusted, and that is a dealbreaker when it comes to expensive & important equipment.
Wasn't US' F16s.
Since when was the US in the European Union or even near Europe? How is it like Brexit in the slightest? Why is it the US's responsibility to finance and organize the majority of EU's defense?
PS: I'm from and in Europe. I don't get why it is a good or logical thing that the US should be responsible for the majority of "Western" defense on our territory.
The US is the largest arms dealer in the world and sells ass tons of equipment to the EU. Ain't nobody going to be buying US arms if they think they could be cut off on a whim. Large parts of the US economy are based on arms production and sales, and a large part of the US's non-arms trade is thanks to the US protecting its trade routes and partners. If the US stops protecting its trade, people will stop preferring trade with the US because it will now be vulnerable and near impossible to secure as a smaller nation because it has to cross the largest oceans in the world.
They’re responsible for honoring their agreements and contracts. How can any European state now trust the F-35s that they’ve purchased or going to purchase? All the trans-Atlantic trust built since 1945. Flushed down the toilet in a few weeks. Trust is difficult to build but easy to destroy.
My real question as a European: why where we buying US fighter jets in the first place and not French/European ones (for example)?
Corruption. US MIC is good at forcing or enticing foreign purchasers.
Because it's been a really good deal for the US. 1. European countries have (for the most part) not had an incentive to build military might, which means they won't be adversaries to the US. 2. This dependency on the US has given the US a lot of soft power in terms of diplomatic pull. In the past, the US could just ask Europe to jump, and Europeans would ask how high. 3. In addition to Europe, it's also kept Russia in check, because it has prevented them from expanding to the west.
Brexit damaged the UK's economy and partnerships. The actions the US keep taking are like that but worse. They are pissing off allies in Europe by doing things like this, they are damaging their own economy and partnerships by threatening and placing tariffs on allies for no real reason.
Brexit was about repealing long-term commitments for short-term gain, and a healthy does of FU to closest partners for domestic publicity. Oh and the short term gains never materialised, it was all costs in the end.
I see this as analogous. US is maybe reaping some short term benefits from flipping on its allies, but burning the bridges it very much relies on.
It was a win win arrangement of sorts. Europe got to spend less on defense. US won a reliable ally that would not challenge them much, and help enforce worldwide US dominance. Basically a near vassal situation.
How exactly was the US benefiting in this arrangement? Sounds very one sided if the American tax payer is doing the bulk of spending while Europe is freeloading
The US has allies in return for this spending. A block of people who stand against autocrats and with the US. It also bought a much more peaceful and free world. Not just nice because it is better for people, but also because it gives opportunity for trade.
Note that it might have been possible for the US to convince the rest of NATO to spend more on their defense without losing the faith of their allies. This sure isn't the way to do it.
Without much background in the politics, the parallel I see is this:
Group A and Group B build an economic partnership under consensual terms generally favourable to both over a long period of time.
At one point, Group A decides to withdraw due to real or perceived inequality. The timeframe of withdrawal is faster than entering, and is insufficient to unearth the complex network of roots that took generations to plant.
When the trunk is pulled, the pain is felt in vast numbers of small ways that add up. These roots are what contain the vast majority of the surface area after all.
comparing war-mongering to a living tree is especially ugly language. Wolf-packs pissing on trees, more like it
> Why is it the US's responsibility to finance and organize the majority of EU's defense?
This is a common talking point, but I think it is totally wrong. The US didn't finance and organize Europe's defense.
They did spend money on their own defense forces which happen to be best positioned in Europe near the best interest as a superpower.
America spent money against their Russian adversary. This money was always well spent as far as I can see it.
The US was never in the European Union, but has always been the leader of NATO and, since WWII, the "Western world". Trump bringing the US out of those positions is a bigger deal than Brexit, because the UK was never a leader in the EU (because of all the internal opposition to it).
The US administration agrees with you. It also decided it doesn't want to sell weapons to the Western world anymore, and that it wants to carry the cost of weapons development all itself without relying on exports.
It also wants to forcibly grow competing defense contractors in Europe.
Sweet sarcasm. Agree.
> I don't get why it is a good or logical thing that the US should be responsible for the majority of "Western" defense on our territory.
Read some history (everything geopolitics after the second world war), you should ask yourself why for 76 years that's exactly what the US did (and perhaps why this is the first time that question occurred to you).
It's because the relationship between Europe and the US is not a mutually beneficial one, the US benefited the most from its power and influence over western Europe, and that doesn't just apply to Europe. NATO and the roughly 128 military bases in 58 different countries don't exist because the US somehow likes to subsidize the military spending of these countries for some altruistic purpose, it exists because it strengthens US influence across the world.
That's soft power, and if it fails, it means war (in total 123 military conflicts since WW2). It's a less bloody alternative to make sure the US gets what it wants because its the stronger party in any geopolitical relationship.
That's the logic behind it. The same logic applies to military aid it gives to Egypt and Israel (that Trump continues to give).
Remember those Iranian F-14s?
Yeah. What you said has zero relevance. It's not like US is taking away the jets. They are just reducing proactive support because it's a democracy and the people don't want the country to be on the leash of anyone.
It's time for Europe to do its own work on this. As a Finnish guy I know plenty of that, and don't view other European nations as acting very responsible having had their self defense capabilities and believability wither.
I don’t understand, why does the government of US has to give support for privately manufactured weapons. The company that sells the weapons should do that right?
Also what does US gain if all countries are using f16?
1. ITAR, 2. They get money.
The first steps are already underway, nevertheless the European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switch ability - like with the F16s here)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members.
Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.
We just need the political will to execute - instead of just rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.
This seems like a huge own goal for the US.
Who will want to buy American military technology, when the ability to employ it is at the whim of whoever wins the next election?
Especially as it's clear now than any alliance with the US is fragile at best, and could end overnight depending on which side of the bed Trump wakes up on.
This will soon be not only limited to military technologies
France's Rafales just had an incredible sale boost.
Let's assume a Russian asset somehow becomes President of the USA.
What would he have done? How would he weaken the USA and strengthen Russia?
At this point, I don't see a difference between Trump + GOP (leaders) and actual traitors.
Other countries who fly then will fill in the gaps. They may start making replacement parts themselves, that's what I would do if I were them.
This is yet another "People said the US would never do that, it would undermine their credibility too much, we shouldn't spread FUD -> oops, they did it anyway" moment.
I'm hoping that people eventually understand that "losing credibility" isn't a deterrent when the offending party is entrenched enough that they believe (correctly or not) that everyone will keep buying their stuff anyway.
it seems so sad that americans dont find it worth while to stand up to their president
Trump just destroyed US advanced arms export. He is efficient at tearing things down, gotta give him that.
A guy who can bankrupt his own casinos is the opposite of whatever a good chief executive officer is.
It makes the US oligarchs comparatively stronger within the US though, with foreign backing diminished, which is probably the main objective of this circus.
How so? Isn't is way better when other countries heavily investing in your economy?
better for who?
I think everyone is underestimating the changes that are happening. Obviously if Trump wanted a prosperous USA, he wouldn't be isolating it, and destroying the federal government and wrecking scientific research and diplomacy across the world.
but an overall poorer US with a permanent far right government under the control of a small group of rich lunatics is better for those rich lunatics.
I don't really care what he wants, but apparently tens of millions of Americans want isolationism. We have tried to make it clear that this will be an economic disaster, but they won the election and they get to make the decisions. So rich lunatics it is.
Really sorry for Ukraine, though. We knew back in November that this meant certain death for them.
Hello,
Complete ignorant of strategy, international relations and power dynamics here.
Is it nagging anyone else that the "Forbes Analyst" gets called Aks, Aske and Ax in just 10 lines or it is just me?
I found it weird too. Was the author using voice dictation to write the article?
That's most likely an artifact of automated translation.
Donald Trump really should leave his fragile ego at the door and continue to support the USA's allies at this time. People forget that it was Zelensky refusing to lie which led to Trumps first impeachment.
At the very least this entire 180 and the attempt to humiliate Zelensky in the White House is Trump wanting to enact some kind of revenge.
At the very worst him praising Putin, threatening to leave Nato, threatening other allies, moving troops out of Germany and into Hungary, et all just reeks of something more.. conspiracy theory or not it's pretty disgusting as someone looking in from the outside.
Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. The only reason he ran for president again (a job he absolutely hated the first time around) was so he would stay out of jail for the myriad of crimes he committed. Now that he actually got reelected (us Americans can be incredibly dumb) he's doing everything he can to punish everyone he deems was "out to get him".
Also he adores Putin and Xi and is doing what he can to become like them. There's no conspiracy, Trump really is that much of a child.
>There's no conspiracy, Trump really is that much of a child.
[citation needed]
Paying attention the last ten years.
> so he would stay out of jail for the myriad of crimes he committed...
These "crimes" https://people.com/donald-trump-every-criminal-charge-explai...?
I am just blown away by the mental gymnastic that people do when they say things like this, that a person just woke up one day and figured that the easiest way to escape from the "crimes" they committed is to become the POTUS, the second time..
One Weird Trick. Doctors Hate Him!
Yes, the easiest because it was the only way.
It worked, didn't it? Every prosecutor just quit soon after Trump was elected.
I do not for a second believe Trump thinks this all up himself. I'm not one for conspiracies, but I'm wondering how large the group using him as a mouthpiece really is.
That's the thing. Trump's actions make no sense unless you view them through the lens that he's driving the agenda of Putin.
Then again, even if a global nuclear war broke out, some of his loyalists would still be convinced that Trump is playing some sort of 3D chess and that it's all going according to his masterful plan.
I used to think this, but now I think something different - isn’t Russia a useful domestic and geopolitical tool? Perhaps the US does not want for Russia either to be too weak or too strong, perhaps they simply want them to be useful.
But would Russia's friendship be more useful than Europe's? I can see the logic behind strengthening ties with Russia to keep them from aligning with China, but Russia has proven itself an unreliable partner in the past, so you have to assume that as soon as Russia sees more benefit in fraternizing with China than the US, they'll turn their coats. The EU has been a pretty loyal vassal, even when disgruntled. But I think we've gone over the tipping point now. The US has shown it can't be trusted upon.
I don’t think they are a partner in the strictest sense, they’re more a useful enemy. Keeping Russia in a certain position - weak enough that they’re not a real threat, strong enough that they can represented as one, means they can be used for domestic and foreign political ends.
This view is the only thing that to me makes sense of what’s happening.
RU has reliably said they would respond to NATO expansion or pulling UKR away from RU influence. RU has also reliably sent gas to EU while responding to efforts by US+EU to swing UKR. RU under Putin is geopolitically reliable, at least in realist sense.
EU are reliable vassals, but they're reliable in the sense that their vassalage doesn't add much to strategic balance, especially vs PRC. EU/NATO bluntly net drain in US security commitments and trade balance. Like EU could have been buying 100s of billions more in US arms and LNG, US looking at the 2T+ trade deficit with EU in last 20 years and wondering if that's worth the hegemon privilege. EU + most US partners think they have a tributary system where vassal supports the hegemon, but it's really an expensive client state system where US pays off vassals. Looking at projected US finances - they can't afford to pay off everyone anymore. Also bluntly, US vassals aren't going to reverse payment flow and become tributaries. If it comes to parity burden share as past US admins has pressured, there's less reason to even be "partners" and more reason for EU to try to be their own pole.
This medievil view of Europe as vassals instead of allies is why US is about to get a medievil style government again.
[flagged]
Gonna need you to provide some sources on the 'ties to the Ukrainian government' there mate. I don't think there's any doubt that he spent time in Kyiv and posted videos encouraging people to join the foreign legion and help the fight.
But as far as I'm reading there isn't any indication that he had ties to the government outside of some Russian news outlets blaming Ukraine for the assassination attempt.
Here, let me Grok that for you: https://x.com/i/grok/share/Y9d3rXe6BoZXipcMyaxe9Lx5D
The guy was actively recruiting for the Ukrainian armed forces.
You argued he had ties.
Ties goes both ways. His were only one way.
Besides, you link to a place that requires log in but were no one wants to be seen anymore because it is run by a I-dont-know-what-to-say and is overrun by russian propaganda.
Source?
You want a source from a person who just created a throwaway accounts named "peepeepoopoo"?
I guess it's worth a try.
Haha I didnt see that.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
>STFU, if this place weren't a total delusional echo chamber,
Oh man, you should take a look at /r/worldnews, I mean, that really takes the prize when it comes to being a total delusional echo chamber.
I remember when Europe was launching stuff in space and USA americans were calling this stupid and wasteful, they demanded Europe give th money to Elon
I wonder why Poland is still buying F35 and other European countries.
Poland was already pissed off with US arm industry under Biden with slow deliveries of US weapons and started to order more and more from South Korea. I guess it will only accelerate.
Because it's the only mass-produced (and thus relatively cheap) 5th Gen fighter that gives you a lot of advantages over 4th Gen and it will likely take at least a decade before mass-produced EUropean alternatives are available.
But yeah, actual experts with access to hardware should validate if there is a kill switch and if replacement parts / weapons could be reverse engineered before buying any more.
There goes the US defense industry and thank you very much from Saab.
I think I’ll use this thread to make a prediction.
At the end of Trump’s term:
- Europe will still be using F-16s and F-35s
- The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance
- European defense spending will be massively higher, with manufacturing and supply chains that are far less easily disrupted
- The US forces deployed to Europe will still be there, but will be bolstered by more European troops
- Russia will have maintained its status as simultaneously a threat and a non-threat
- Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.
All of which will nicely serve the broader long term interests of the United States.
As it always is, no matter who is in the White House.
> - The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance
This is already gone: "US ‘to cease all future military exercises in Europe’" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/08/us-to-cea...
I wasn’t aware that Trumps term had ended after only three months.
Ah yes, we'll end our participation and pull out all troops and then send them all back, in opposite land.
They haven’t been pulled out. Just like they weren’t pulled out during his last term. He’s “threatening” to redeploy troops to Eastern Europe from Germany. “Threatening” to do exactly what happens to make the most strategic sense. But it’s a threat. Honest.
> - Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.
I'm sure the Ukrainians will care, and most of us in Europe will too.
I certainly agree that the Ukrainians will care about it very much, but you, unless you are in an Eastern European country, most likely will not.
The reason that you care right now is because it is in US interests that you care. As soon as that changes, you won’t. You’ll be too busy caring about something else.
Probably accurate for the coming 4 years.
In the middle to long term though, Europe should and will decouple from the US in defense and tech. US influence will be reduced. European almost made a fatal mistake with Galileo that the US wanted to kill [0] and I don't think they will make that mistake again. F-35, Starlink, air defense will be built by European companies.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)
One more prediction: a number of our allies will test domestically built nuclear weapons, including Germany, Poland, and South Korea.
Unlikely. Nuclear independence threatens US hegemony. It won’t be allowed to happen. The US wants Europe stronger, not independent.
Do you have reasoning to support this improbable conjunction, or are you just seeking to bet money?
The strategic interests of the US stay the same. All of this is posturing which will only improve the alliance which the US leads. Carrot or stick, this president or that president, certain things don’t change. All that changes is the implementation.
John Bolton, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Wesley Clark, and Justin Trudeau seem to be unanimous in their assessment that the things you are saying "don't change" just changed. Of course they could be wrong, or lying, but they certainly aren't acting in concert.
Look what’s happened: the Europeans are now unanimous on the idea that European rearmament is necessary for survival, and have a political environment that allows them to sell that idea to their electorates. Electorates that historically have been opposed to spending on military over healthcare and social programs.
And once that rearmament happens, or is underway to an extent that it’s irreversible, what is the US going to do?
They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance. And the Europeans will say, thank goodness the US is back. Aren’t we all safer now.
Honestly, my gut feeling tells me the same. Time will tell...
I guess the Danes (just like us Norwegians) think the choice of F-35 rather than neighbouring allies' planes was wise... In contrast to the F-16, one can only assume that Trump & co can basically disable the F-35 or at least render it completely useless for battle. Norwegian operation of the F-35 is even completely dependent on American personnel for years to come.
Used to be "buy cheap, buy twice", now it's "buy American, buy twice".
One step could be to replace what Israel replaced, for more independance. Wouldn't buy their solution though, they sell bad pagers.
Trump has the soccer world cup in USA soon. Spectators could make it hell, boo the USA anthem at every game. I think they will.
Trump administration is weakening the US faster than any enemy could.
The US has been compromised by Putin. It’s very clear for all to see.
Trump has had it out for Ukraine since he tried to bribe them. Telling them to find dirt on Biden or he would withhold military assistance. They didn't go for it and it is what directly led to his impeachment. While Russia absolutely owns Trump, I believe Trump would do this even if they didn't.
Zelensky campaigning with democrats didn't help
Zelenskyy did not campaign with the Democrats. He met with both Dem and Republican senators throughout 2024.
Will America ever be trusted again?
Also, stop flagging news articles simply because they are slightly anti-Trump.
I don't know why anyone trusted us post 2016. Even with a sane President it was always clear that we were dangerously unreliable. And even if this insanity ends in four years it will always recur.
capitulation will not bring peace
Trump is really a disgusting human being. I'm not a US citizen but this looks an awful lot like treason -- he is actively helping an enemy of the state.
He is saving American money for American people as was promised. You just don't like the fact that the world is heading towards de-globalisation because of whatever other political belief you have that you aren't sharing like most people here.
[dead]
[flagged]
> while hundreds of thousands get killed or mutilated?
Most of them are russians in uniform, which, as tragic as it is, is a better outcome.
The original invasion force brought tens of thousands of body bags and it is clear they weren't originally meant for russian troops.
If you have any doubt, look up the pre written article that popped on Kremlins website a few days after the full scale invasion about large tragic but unavoidable losses of civilian lives.
Or look at how the convoy that targeted Kyiv contained lots and lots of prison buses and how they brought mobile crematoriums.
It is easy to sit safely here and comment.
If you want to do something better get out and donate and help the fight.
Are you calling on russia to stop its aggression and return to its borders? If not you're not against war, just on the aggressor's side.
> war mongers
> endless
It’s a bit interesting to me that I’ve seen this point of view enough to know precisely the propaganda talking points made in Russian media.
This is an open forum. Put forward your solution to the war so it can be discussed.
Ahahaha. It's an "open" forum where? Parent poster got flagged, his post no longer readable (unless a user enabled flagged posts?) and you suggest discussion to them. This HN crowd is sarcastic!!
Trump's is: Ukraine folds, because it holds no cards, Putin gets all he wants, and US companies can do business with Russia again.
Russia a country who's GDP is between Italy and Spain. Surely worth it to antagonize all the other G7 members over Russia.
Better a war monger than a traitor.
So Russia invaded Chechnya and is now using Chechens to invade Ukraine.
You suggest that Russia takes Ukraine, then uses Ukrainians to invade Moldova?
That is what you are suggesting, right?
Also, my programmers keyboard gives me a very nice peaceful wage. A wage that I partly use to support the Ukrainian defence forces. I suggest everyone to the same: https://savelife.in.ua/en/.
> I only see war mongers commenting here
There's a fast way to end the war. The war can end tomorrow. All Russia needs to do is get out of Ukraine. All of it.
Easy to do, simple to achieve. No more Russians need to die.
Explain USA vote in UN, they voted with Ruzzia and other despicable dictators. Not even China voted with Ruzzia and obtained.
But you can explain how the genius Trump placing USA in this group of countries is actually good for USA.
Playing right into Putin's hands.
trump is _in_ putin's hands.
I'm wondering if the deal with Trump and Russia is just favours like they find investors for his questionable businesses and he helps them or if they do have kompromat? Apparently in the days they were entertaining him in Moscow it was quite common to provide hookers and film things and given Trump's character it may not have been that hard to get him to go along. He always looks rather embarrassed with Putin.
Also it could explain this stuff which is hard otherwise.
I honestly think Trump is just impressed by Putin. Like he loves the power that Putin wields and likes and wants that. Trump has consistently expressed his admiration of unconstrained power in all forms. It's not just a Putin thing, though I think there is a little extra going on with Putin.
Otherwise, I think what Trump has said about Ukraine is more or less what he believes and wants. He wants there to be peace, quickly, so that he can be known as a peace maker. He wants to be known as the person who can do the undoable. His henchmen repeat it endlessly - "only Donald Trump could bring peace here". He does not care about the details for Ukraine, and he doesn't really care about the details for Europe - he's wanted to cut loose from Europe since the first term.
In addition, there's probably quite a lot of personal apathy towards Zelensky specifically.
Finally it's possible that his China hawks are also shaping his base tendencies to try to deliver a Russia-China split. But I don't think that Trump really believes in that, it's just the people in his admin trying to make something of this situation. And I don't really believe that even a peace favourable to Putin can deliver the type of split that the China hawks might dream of, at least within this term.
"Trump is an alien impersonator trying to destroy humanity from within to make it easier for the aliens to colonize earth"
That is also a probable explanation for what's happening, if you believe in UFOs and aliens.
Sorry, I mean no disrespect.
As a non-american and non-westerner, it's absolutely wild to see what people are willing to believe when it comes to Trump. Surely, there's a more rational and simple explanation for what's going on ?
Perhaps you have thought of one? If so, the rest of us are dying to hear it.
It doesn't matter what I think or believe. What matters and what we know is that nearly half of America's electorate does not think that these allegations have any merits. The rest are free to believe or speculate whatever they want to.
What matters more is what's actually true.
My personal farfetched alternative theory is the "Earth X" theory.
Earth X was a comic (lol) with one interesting idea — if enough people preceive "A" as "B", "A" becomes "B".
In the case of Trump, he despises the left wing camp for kicking him off Twitter and prosecuting him. As such he takes their nightmares that they believed in term one and makes them real as personal revenge. For an old man, it is no doubt the most satisfying possible end of his life possible.
Far fetched but more realistic than "He's being blackmailed". Do you really believe the man has any shame?
Yes, the 34 felony counts against Trump proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt were about falsifying business records to pay hush money to pron star Stormy Daniels over their sex affair: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donal...
If he had no shame, he would have kept the money.
I don't really want to divert the thread to a lot of questionable Trump stuff but there is some evidence in that direction. See for example https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-fir... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia... https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
Do you have sources that don't take funding from US Intel (USAID)?
Felix Sater? I'm guessing he's not funded by US intel? But I really don't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Sater#Involvement_with_T...
Or "Alnur Mussayev, former head of Kazakhstan’s security service, who rose up the ranks of the Soviet KGB"? Was US intel funding the KGB?
I mean, you can just check the source used in the article they linked if you aren't afraid to click on it: https://www.facebook.com/alnurKZ/posts/pfbid027EZdp8n4vuBm97...
LOL that was the source? It was a random guy saying he recruited Donald Trump in the 1980s (possibly true), and then a bunch of conjecture based on appearances? No collaborating evidence? No details on what he recruited Donald Trump for or what they used them for?
Thank you for a good laugh.
Sorry, did you want the Politburo to convene in the graveyard to deliver an official statement? Maybe you're waiting for a really trustworthy Russian ideologue like Putin to examine the KGB records on your behalf?
The story is corroborated by Yuri Shvets and Sergei Zhyrnov. You don't have to listen if the accusation offends you, but the pieces of the puzzle sure point towards kompromat more than glasnost.
The accusation doesn't offend me at all. Please send me the sources for Yuri Shvets and Sergei Zhyrnov (either credible journalists or first hand sources that I can dig through are fine).
I am interested in facts, not propaganda echo chamber discussions.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5162890-assessing-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6r8Oq-tu4
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia...
People commenting here keep speaking as though Americans all decided to do this. Trump didn't even win the majority of votes of those who voted. And those who voted for him had only the most nebulous idea of what doing this would mean. It meant something like "Those people who never treated us with respect will get what's coming. If they don't love us they will fear us."
This happens all the time. "Russia did X." "The UK just did stupid thing Y." "Why are Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
There are always lots of people who disagree with the actions of their government. Some governments -- the US government increasingly so -- punish dissent. Russians, for one, have almost no say over what their government does. Americans in general are not making these terrible decisions. Some cabal is, but even the Republicans, who have all the power at the moment, are mostly just knuckling under to decisions they know are terrible.
I know it's tempting to blame and hate people as nations, but I don't think it helps. In fact, it's how we got here in the first place: firebrands telling nitwits that everyone in Europe or New York City or wherever hates them.
> "Russia did X." "The UK just did stupid thing Y." "Why are Germans suddenly authoritarian again?"
This is just the language that is used to refer to the governments as well as the people/culture. It may help to presume that, in most cases, they’re referring to just the governments.
> Trump didn't even win the majority of votes of those who voted.
he did win the popular vote this time, unlike last.
Still below 50% (49% something) so technically not majority but plurality.
Trump: 77,302,580 votes / 49.8% of popular vote Harris: 75,017,613 votes / 48.3% of popular vote
It doesn't matter it wasn't 50%. He actually won the popular vote this time.
Technically you are correct. But actually the real winners were the extreme vote suppression tactics. Without them trump would have lost clearly: read the extremely conservative estimates targeted mostly non-trump voters: https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won...
I find it very funny how even faced with actual numbers you can’t accept that he won the popular vote.
> People commenting here keep speaking as though Americans all decided to do this. Trump didn't even win the majority of votes of those who voted.
True, but if Americans do not stop it, they own it.
Nobody cares much if you meant to make an accident, you should have been more careful - especially if you run away from the scene.
America is turning into Russia in real time right now, it’s nuts and a lot of people is saying Trump is playing 6D chess
I love the irony that it's the complete opposite of "America First" in practice.
"why did everyone stop buying our planes and weapons"
Obligatory: https://open.substack.com/pub/theahura/p/the-five-year-old-t...
Trump is constantly failing the five year old test. A child could tell you that this is the wrong thing to do.
Simple fact. The empire of lies lost the proxy war against Russia. Be glad that you are alive. Stupidity, lack of critical thinking, emotionally driven Russophobia, warmongering, corruption in Ukraine and EU. This is the logical result.
You have being saved by the immense patience of Russian people and Kremlin. Everything else is pure madness.
USA is not the economic power of the world anymore. You don't have the industrial base for producing the quantity of weapons needed for conventional war with pear countries. The dream is over.
Now you must cut back all the operational expenses for information war and save what you have for the next big conflict. With China.
And as Victoria Nuland stated in 2014 building the military coup in Kyiv: F* the EU.
If Ukraine is corrupt why didn't Putin just bribe them?
My suspicion is Trump is putting pressure on Zelensky (a) because he hates him personally and (b) because he wants an even bigger mineral rights deal. The thinking being, let Zelensky stew in it without U.S. help and suffer some humiliating defeats and let him come crawling back to the table so that he can sell of the majority of his country to the Americans, far more than the Russians will ever get.
It's 2 assholes friendly with each other sharing the spoils of war: Putin gives Trump the opportunity to brag about bringing $500B to the US/maybe it'll be today's Halliburton that'll get the mining rights, for a donation to the new Trump Mansion, and Putin gets everything else.
It's because Russia is on the verge of economic collapse and Putin forces Trump to cancel sanctions critical to them.
At this point, Russia got maximum from this war. These rare minerals deal is just to distract and it's nothing compared to oil, manganese and soil Russia will capture.
Also, I'm struggling to find any reason for Zelensky to sign the deal – no protection, zero chance to get land back. Just thrown under the bus. EU is better option.
Fckd up
Am I reading this right? Nothing has been disabled, they're no longer sending frequency updates? Not even clear if this is related to the current spat.
> the Biden Air Force was able to keep up with the Russian adaptation by constantly tweaking the AN/ALQ-131 frequencies, under Trump, Ukrainian pilots are not receiving updates, and the programs could soon become obsolete.
If so, title seems inflammatory. Not that I support the action, just saying it should be characterized accurately
Does anyone still have any doubts that Trump is helping Putin? He consistently helps Russian fascists using "boiling the frog" method to avoid doing it too rapidly. But it's still glaringly obvious.
Everyone who for voted for this scum should be blamed.
Beyond sanity. The US breaking trust with the world will have repercussions for generations. This is a stupid decision
[dead]
@dang - why flagged?
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177590>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23873461>
Flagging is done by HN members, not by dang.
Everything nominally related to Trump is getting flagged, even comments. Several unrelated comments of mine went from neutral/positive to flagged suddenly. Salty folks, or maybe coordinated, probably a little of both.
I've noticed the same. Wish I knew if it was real people or an army of bots flipping switches to influence visibility for someone's gain.
You're right, probably both. Unfortunately the question alone makes HN have much less utility.
[dead]
Politics is explicitly marked as off-topic for HN in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The guidelines don’t completely rule out politics, and in this case the topic is of interest here since it dovetails with other political issues of long-running concern in the HN community: who owns devices with outside service dependencies, right to repair, etc. The question of whether someone who physically controls an ECM pod can configure it feels a lot like the question about whether John Deere can prevent a farmer from configuring their tractor’s software or an IoT vendor can shut down a service without providing an alternative.
One area where this is especially of interest is everyone considering their dependency on U.S. products. If you live in a country under military threat, questions like what happens if the first strike against Canada involved a malicious Chrome or Windows update or holding back a patch for a vulnerability the NSA wants to exploit is quite an interesting problem.
"Most" != "all": <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531909>
What's "politics"? Any policy enacted by the US government? That's not how it used to work here.
From the rules:
> Most stories about politics, [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon
The US killing trust in its export of arms is definitely a new phenomenon. It breaks with +80 years of policy.
All startups in SV will now have to consider if they will have an export market at all.
Which non-US companies would now like to be dependent on whatever export restrictions that Trump might make up in the future?
Given how pervasive politization has become this would suggest that strict adherence to any "politics is off-topic" rule would necessarily involve making the site permanently read-only.
The guidelines seem just vague enough to allow for suppression of topics that the oligarchs are touchy about while appearing reasonable. Tech is inherently political.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
There is a simple answer: HN is getting targeted by state-level actors and moderation team is asleep at the wheel, utterly unprepared to act against such a sophisticated threat. Perhaps someone should email dang, that ought to solve it!
That wasn't the reason I think, rather than some people abusing the flag option to keep anything they don't like off the front page, thinking their personal preferences are more important than what everyone else votes.
Please send a polite mail to dang, he is really helpful.
He knows exactly what he’s doing.
If time permits, this is a good era to learn guitar if you haven't already. Or some sort of creative brain or muscle hobby where screens aren't the central focus.
I don’t think that’s the reason. Maybe there’s just too much discussion of the US and Ukraine. It’s understandable, the political situation at the moment is a big topic, it might risk drowning out other topics.
It’s more comments than upvotes. That’s a good indicator it’s a shitty topic filled with a flame war
I don't know that that follows.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Funny that you don't call for elections in Russia because we didn't have any for 20 years.
How can you even begin to hold a fair election when about 20% of your nation is occupied by a foreign power?
Beside the fact that it isn't practical, they would need to amend their constitution before they could hold an election during wartime. This is all also ignoring the question begging that the original poster was engaged in with the assumption that holding an election would end the war.
[dead]
Don’t forget holding an election during wartime is against the constitution of Ukraine. Also, even the opposition is against it.
Theoretically, if you exclude the occupied parts from voting, you'd ensure no Yanukovich-like candidate winning.
On the other hand, Trump can always move the goalpost ("Election not held in eastern Oblasts == Sham elections") or even reinforce the view that the eastern oblasts are de facto not part of the Ukrainian state anymore.
And on the knowledge that Russia will certainly conduct strikes on polling stations.
Also Zelensky's popularity has shot up since Trump started aligning with Russia. And the next most likely president is probably even more hawkish towards Russia.
> end the war
Why is it that Ukraine needs to end the war but not Russia?
The Russian army can decide to leave and go to their side of the border at any time. It's more complicated than that (war crimes, reparations, all the people that have been abducted) but I still wonder why this is not being discussed at more often - it is totally clear who is the agressor here.
1. That would unconstitutional
2. Every elected politician in the Verkovna Rada voted in support for Zelensky, including his opponents
3. The only ones who wants an election right now are Putin and his allies
[flagged]
[flagged]
NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Under what scenario are all the governments of NATO countries convinced to attack Russia?
Also Finland just joined and Russia barley registered a complaint.
This. If NATO countries threatened anything, it's russian imperialism, by having the ability to defend themselves.
Without going into the merits of this war, NATO - which was supposedly a defensive alliance - did indeed attack Kosovo in an offensive.
So NATO has demonstrated they can be whatever they want when the right time comes. NATO intervention in Kosovo to “liberate it” is also being used to morally justify Russian’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, since from a Russian standpoint it’s exactly the same scenario and they are “liberating” the Russian population in those Ukrainian territories.
So 1 million K-Albanian refugees were gonna go where the Adriatic?
That’s apparently where 200,000-250,000 Serbian refugees were expected to go after the war.
But my point is that NATO is a military alliance, to call it “defensive” is just propaganda as it has shown it can be offensive too. And there is nothing wrong with simply calling it for what it is, I believe countries should be able to form military alliances, but let’s not gaslight ourselves.
More to your point this isn’t some 1914 march through the mountains when this sort of Westphalian ethnic cleansing is acceptable
>NATO has never been a threat to Russia
This is a very naive take, I think. When you are responsible for the security of a nation, you can't just remain passive to the potential threats that shows up on your doorstep. I mean, it would be irresponsible his people if Putin did that and trusted NATO/US blindly to not cross the line, one way or another. (I mean, US could always make up some cooked up justification for the attack, like it has done so many times in the past), So if US is putting missiles near Russian border, even if that is on behalf of NATO, I think Putin is bound to do something about it..
I don't understand what part of that is "Russian propoganda"..
> potential threats
What threats specifically? This should be very easy to answer, but no one ever does.
NATO has had missiles at Russia’s border for 70 years, in Turkey, but that never resulted in a US special military operation to Moscow.
> This should be very easy to answer, but no one ever does.
I don't think this is very easy to answer. The fact that people think it should be very easy to answer this, shows how naive they are, because the reason why country x think country y is a threat could include a lot of information and context that is not available to an external observer.
The Russian propaganda part is that you act as if Russia is defending, while actually they are invading.
Do the neighbors of France need an alliance against a French invasion? Do the neighbors of Germany need an alliance against a German invasion? Why not?
> Do the neighbors of Germany need an alliance against a German invasion?
Perhaps once a century the answer to this question is “yes”.
But the argument is only based on publicly available, historic facts. That is my problem with painting it as propaganda.
Publicly available, historic facts do not support the argument that russia's invasion was legally justified under any reasonable interpretation of a "threat". Claiming that they do is the propaganda mentioned above. russia is, in fact, the invader, and Ukraine did not invade russia first.
Also, you should respond to the second part of their post, as it contains a viewpoint that you might find interesting, and a question asked of your own viewpoint. Understanding others' viewpoints is a good foundation for coming to agreement.
This is russian propaganda and it is important to know what it says, to be able to recognize it when you see it elsewhere, from the mouth of an influencer, a politician, a comment on the Web etc.
Rejecting theories by labeling them "propaganda" with out any justification is not really helping here.
These bankrupt theories have been debunked long ago. The other comments in reply to yours did that well. The first video is literally Putin speaking, the second one is a list of Kremlin talking points, just with an Indian voice.
The term “NATO expansion” for example, is propaganda. Countries that had suffered under the Russian/Soviet oppression looked for protection when the USSR collapsed and requested to join the alliance.
Some of us have been following European politics for a long time, friend.
When we call out propaganda you can listen to us.
>Some of us have been following European politics for a long time, friend.
Oh yea, here is one guy that does exactly that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_KEFpuIro
Transcript:
https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopo...
>Not for Crimea. Not for the Donbas. Nothing like that. This idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire, this is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
>If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So no designs at all. The United States decided this man must be overthrown. It’s called a regime change operation.
Sachs is lying about Maidan. Absolute majority of Ukrainians in Western and Central Ukraine supported it, like 80-90%. Millions participated, hundreds of thousands took active part, trying to be at the protests almost every day.the protests lasted for four months, from November to February, which is fairly cold in Ukraine. I was there at the time, yet Sachs just casually drops “I’ve been told they are all paid”, without any evidence.
That is propaganda
>I’ve been told they are all paid
Surely he didn't mean all the people present there are paid. As far as I understand, when you want some initiate a political change, you pay influencers, and they actually go an convince/gaslight the masses about the need for change.
So all the people who were present there might not be paid, but a lot of prime movers and the require infrastructure might be paid by the interested party.
And the masses are so stupid to do just as they told.
I don’t know what he “meant”, that’s what he said. There was a very clear external event that triggered Maidan, there was another event that made it massive.
The payment of influencers is just as a massive contribution into protests is just a speculation
Stop peddling russian propaganda.
Just because you can dig up three YouTube links that supports the russian side doesn't mean we should belive them.
Russia/USSR been pretty hostile to nations who don't want to join their peaceful and strong brotherhood. Hey they even invaded other communist nations just cause they decide to keep some independence.
If those "unfaithful" countries join NATO this creates problems for Russia to force them to give up their freedom.
And USSR/Russia started a fuss that NATO is a threat for them.
Meanwhile Putin became silent after he forced Sweden and Finland to reconsider and join.
The threat to putin wasn't Nato om his doorstep but a partially russian speaking country becoming a successful democracy and joining EU.
Somewhat surprisingly they are OK with Ukraine joining the EU [1].
> Ukraine has a sovereign right to join the European Union, but this “sovereignty” does not apply to military alliances, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
https://www.politico.eu/article/dmitrt-peskov-kremlin-ukrain...
1. Kremlin says a lot of things so probably they also said Ukraine could join EU. The night before the full scale invasion they claimed they had no intention of attacking Ukraine.
2. Ukraine has the right to join whatever alliance it wants regardless of what russia means.
>Somewhat surprisingly they are OK with Ukraine joining the EU [1].
So this makes sense to me. Basically I think it is US that Russia sees as a threat (because may be US seen Russia as a major threat and wants to break it up).
If NATO is threatening Russia, why didn't Russia invade a NATO country? Russia is a classic bully that chooses to attack the weak, this is the only explanation.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzgPJeYZaOU
The second video repeats the same argument: the "NATO's eastward march". Putin says Russia had to start the war in Ukraine to stop NATO from expanding too close (he failed as two more countries joined NATO). But when you dig one "why?" deeper you can understand that NATO is not a self-aware entity that expands and threats, it's an alliance of countries that realize that if Russia attacks them and they are alone, they are in the same situation as Ukraine: alone and doomed to begging for help. Whereas if they stand together, Russia will think twice before attacking them. That's why Putin hates NATO so much: he can't freely conquer the Baltics - he'd have done it already in 2008 or so. So he uses anti-NATO rhetoric that people in Russia buy. Maybe they are really afraid Estonia or Bulgaria attacks Russia? Who knows what's in their heads.
> Who knows what's in their heads
Expansion, colonization, power and wealth. Classic
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOkl2XgZlw0
So here Putin says he had no choice but to attack Ukraine because NATO (a defensive treaty) was "expanding" into Ukraine. This is false. Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, but its membership request was rejected. And from the start of the war in 2014, it was never on the table - how would a country in a state of war could even dream of joining NATO (which at the time seemed a stable alliance)?
I know some Russians believe in this explanation, it seems very simple: Russia is not setting up nukes in Cuba so from the same PoV Ukraine should not host missiles hostile to Russia. Seems valid, right? The problem here is that Putin, as he admitted in his retracted victory piece[0], wanted to "solve the Ukrainian problem for the future generations" and basically make Ukraine part of his empire just as he did with Belarus. Ukrainians don't want to be his slaves so they chose to fight.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
if you're unable to recognise obvious propaganda efforts, then you need to get off the internet and improve your intellectual self-defence skills.
it is a very very dangerous time to be this naive.
[flagged]
Is consensus in the room with us right now?
Yeah? What's your enlightened take, Sherlock?
[flagged]
"Video of Zelensky Saying Thank You to America 94 Times Goes Viral"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/v...
[dead]
This war from the beginning was meaningless other than for MIC interests. Trump is right in getting out of this mess. Europe did harakiri by sacrificing its energy security and economy for an inconsequential NATO expansion. What is playing out now is the end of Western liberal democracy which is being replaced by Techno libertarianism. European elites who do not see the writing on the wall are writing their own obituaries.
If your "energy security" is dependent on a belligerent state, you don't have energy security. This was something Trump himself has repeatedly criticized the Europeans for, so if you lead with "Trump was right" follow that thread.
Europe has no apparent future - neither economy nor demography is in its favor. EU experiment has failed. NATO is irrelevant as well. Real reason why Trump does not care.
Sure, if we had kept Berlin Wall up and Soviet Union alive then Western liberal democracy would be in a much better state, tech bros would not exist and everyone would be rich, young and beautiful. Please get a grip.
I am tired of being taxed and having the money go to forever wars in other countries. Slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza, destabilizing Russia, and on and on. At least Trump is winding it down in one place. If Europeans think a hardline against Russia is important, then they can pay for it. We're on the other side of the ocean.
This is why the Democrats lost. All they care about is war in the Ukraine. Bernie Sanders supports the war too, but at least he says a few scraps from the table should go to US workers. But he is thrown aside. The Democrats were for the Ukraine war, Jill Stein and Trump were not, and Americans voted for this.
Americans voted for this, Trump is implementing it, and all the warmongers and war profiteers and neocons have left is some neocon press and downvotes here for the majority American opinion which screwy old Trump is implementing.
A lot of that is inherited from Germany not going fully armed again after II WW, and some capable countries not making nukes (Spain and Italy halted their advanced nuclear programs when the US pressured for it, offering them NATO coverage). How could the USA ask now European countries to not develop nukes?
It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances. When USA goes to their wars and they ask for help, Europeans, Canadians and Australians oblige. If USA goes full isolationist, the rest of the world must develop their own nukes and their own forces. Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony, and now that they got it they throw it away?
If that's what US wants, it's OK, but I believe some people don't fully understand the reality or the consequences. The US citizen don't pay taxes for Europe protection; Europe citizens pay taxes to buy american weapons.
> It's in the interest of the USA to cooperate and be part of defensive alliances.
Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way street with them, they can do nothing for us.
Finland is the most ridiculous case as Stalin could have easily swallowed it up in 1945 if it was in Russia's interest to do so, with little a peep from the West. Them joining NATO in 2023 is an absurdity. A military alliance which should have never existed in the first place - which both Taft and former VP Henry Wallace said in the 1940s.
> Goodbye to the dollar hegemony and the industrial military complex. Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
> USA fought hard with the USSR to achieve hegemony
It's more absurd thinking. In 1917 Russia's economy was about Brazil's size. It was like an NFL team playing against a high school team for over a century. Russia barely even had influence over the communists in China.
The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5. When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US that receives an order of magnitude less income from those countries than it previously did. All things considered, it will be a US with both less income and less influence.
Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts.
You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money.
Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA.
> Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!
I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports?
Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening?
Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe.
> It's more absurd thinking
It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA.
For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).
This was a democrat/liberal position until 2016, and now it is exceedingly right-coded.
First, reps where for Ukraine and now you are flipping like a vane. Second, $100b in weapon aid for Ukraine is just small change and old stuff mostly; and Ukraine could be one of the solid buyers for decades. Third, if you're not a filthy rich you are paying and will pay a lot more for the upcoming years. This could be a real win for US, Ukraine and even probably could overthrow Putin. But with that course of actions the only option for you is to keep stacking eggs.
This particular story is interesting because it's not just about Trump stopping tax payer money, it's about deactivating US made weapons the Europeans have paid for.
They aren’t even useful the anti-air is too good for either side to use jets
Incorrect. The explanation is above.
Could recent wars just be a worldwide plot for just accelerating economy (selling weapons, buying food, etc..)?
No. War is bad for economies. It’s good for firms that produce materiel but on the whole is a net negative. Classic broken window fallacy. Killing your workforce is a drain on economic growth.
So much warmongering going on here. The site where majority used to call to end US as world police, stop interfering and instigating overthrowing government now wants the opposite. This site is surely astroturfed or suddenly people have turned violent.
Many here are anti-war, not pacifist. They disliked the US starting wars. Likewise, they dislike Russia starting wars. That's neither astroturfing nor people turning violent. Quite the opposite: many abhor violence, and letting people invade other countries without consequence does not lead to a world with less violence.
People don't want the US to interfere with domestic politics in Ukraine, they want it to help the national government that has overwhelming support from the local populace fend off an invasion from a foreign nation. They're not in favor of overthrowing the government, they want to prevent that very thing from happening.
I can assure you that there would never be any chance of paid shill brigades shouting down opposing viewpoints on HackerNews. Instead, as I have been informed many times, posts critical of Trump are being flagged. The posts that make it through then naturally are flooded with independent thinkers who just happen to all be in agreement. I mean, how could you not agree with them, right?
Those who disagree about this particular topic obviously deserve whatever they get here. That's why ad hominem rules do not apply to them, and there is no need to be civil when replying to Russian trolls such as them!!
If astroturfing were happening, it would show up as most anyone critical of the astroturf comments being downvoted and/or flagged into grey oblivion, while the astroturf brigade would present as an unusually large number of comments that all agree with each other.
Anyway, I have been keeping track for a small study I a doing on information warfare, and look forward to presenting my research on this. Am still gathering screenshots and other data. So far, I am in awe at the deep thinking and high level of civil discourse on display here. I really like that folks here show respect even to those who disagree.
Deep thinking, civil discourse? Your comment even indicates that if you disagree you are russian troll. How come a left leaning site become a rabid warmongering right leaning one. It seems like left and right switched sides on some issues.
There’s a good reason for people to flag these posts.
It seems like most folks in the comment section didn’t even read TFA.
Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
Per TFA, the US is not actively “turning off” any piece of equipment, they are no longer providing updates (something with which we are all familiar.
Per TFA, this means that the US is no longer providing active support in a country-vs-country battle of electronic warfare. Which is what the title and article says, and very different from what most of you actually READ.
The article pretty clearly explains how important the missile jamming feature is, and that Ukraine has to switch to other planes and equipment.
Okay, let’s separate this out.
Functionally are the jammers now useless? Sure.
Did the US make them useless? No.
They’re useless because the Russians figured out how to beat them.
When the Russians beat them, America has basically been saying “Okay here’s another version.” And that’s what has stopped.
So all the moaning about how “other countries should be worried about their arms purchases…” or “kill switches in the F-35” or “Americans didn’t want this,” are basically whining about America refusing to provide arms and intelligence/cyber services for free.
And let’s break down one more final assumption. You seem to assume that I should care about Ukraine losing? I don’t. I care far more about Americans being dragged into it for reasons that make no sense. So I’d like for the conflict to end.
And as you aptly demonstrated. You don't care about the security needs of your allies.
As for free support. Have you any clue how much economy of scale is unlocked by selling to other markets ? You profit from the sales, you profit from lower per-unit costs.
Anyway. Whatever, you can count on the feeling being mutual soon, we are so done with you..
So, to conclude, foreigners shouldn't buy F35s.
[dead]
> Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
But this should absolutely worry F-35 operators.
Exactly this: the US is not providing software updates anymore. The planes fly just fine. It is going to be tricky if they decide to stop hardware support - meaning spare parts.
> Per TFA, this impacts F-16s NOT F-35s
Title it about F16s
> Per TFA, the US is not actively “turning off” any piece of equipment
From the article: "the Trump administration has cut off vital support for their [the F16s'] jamming capabilities"
What article are you reading?