What I witnessed in that oval office in that moment of “great television” was absolutely disgusting and repulsive. The way Zelensky was mocked and chided, even by Marjorie Taylor Green’s boyfriend, for not wearing a suit — was revolting. The whole scene was simply unbelievable, though we’ve had hints that Trump was not enthused about defending Ukraine… even so, I was stunned. If my tone appears hysterical and my language hyperbolic - no. I mean, there’s no other way to describe this except with language so extremely explosive and high-pitched. Maybe instead I could substitute —- stunned silence. It’s like a room has been emptied violently and suddenly and a void created. Now, what enters? It likely won’t be anything good. Nothing good at all.
This episode highlights the dangers of appeasement in the face of authoritarian aggression; when negotiation is merely a disguise for coercion, yielding only emboldens the oppressor. Schuschnigg’s attempt to maintain Austria’s sovereignty through diplomacy was met not with reasoned discussion but with threats and ultimatums, demonstrating that autocrats do not respect concessions—they exploit them. History repeatedly shows that when democratic nations or leaders hesitate to confront bullies, they pave the way for further domination, often at a far greater cost. The Anschluss was not merely the absorption of Austria but a chilling precursor to Hitler’s broader ambitions, which would soon engulf Europe in war. This moment serves as a stark warning for modern geopolitics: when tyrants posture and intimidate, failing to push back decisively only invites further aggression, often with devastating consequences.
There is something seriously wrong with Europe in general and the UK in particular. This is from the “Free Press” Substack.
“Rose Docherty, a 74-year-old grandmother, was put in handcuffs and arrested in Scotland last month.
Her crime?
Standing outside a Glasgow hospital where abortions are performed and holding up a sign that said: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”
Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, which Docherty stood next to, is located within a “Safe Access Zone” where exerting any “influence” over those seeking or providing abortions is banned. Praying silently—or even parking a car with a pro-life bumper sticker on it—inside the zone may violate this rule.
“I was approaching no one on that day. I wasn’t calling out. I was standing quietly by the roadside,” Docherty told The Free Press. “I am worried about a society that’s willing to lock up a 74-year-old grandmother for offering consensual conversation.”
She’s not the only one who is worried. Last month, Vice President J.D. Vance made the same point when he criticized European leaders for turning their backs on free speech.
“In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” he said in an address at the Munich Security Conference on February 14. “Perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs.”
That speech sparked immediate outrage. German defense minister Boris Pistorius said Vance’s comments were “not acceptable." The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Vance was “trying to pick a fight.” Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, added his voice to the chorus, calling Vance “just wrong.” Last week at the White House, British prime minister Keir Starmer also hit back at Vance, insisting: “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”
But as readers of The Free Press know, Vance is right. Free speech is most definitely on the wane in Europe, especially in the UK. And the case of Rose Docherty, who was arrested on February 19, just five days after Vance gave his Munich speech, is not the only example of the problem. As I reported for The Free Press last October, at least half a dozen people have been arrested and in some cases prosecuted over the last few years for silently protesting or praying in abortion buffer zones across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Docherty, who is Catholic, said she stood at the main road near the hospital and displayed her sign for about 90 minutes during lunchtime before two police officers showed up. When they asked her if she knew she was in a buffer zone, she said yes but that she was only inviting “consensual conversation.” After that, she was handcuffed, told she was being charged with breaching the abortion “safe access” law, and hauled off to the police station. There, she was searched, swabbed for DNA, and had her mugshot and fingerprints taken before being released.
She said she is now waiting to hear if there’s enough evidence to prosecute her. If convicted, she could face a fine of up to £10,000 ($12,706).
“It was a surreal experience,” Docherty told me. “I just thought, I’m a 74-year-old elderly woman—what are you afraid of that you feel that you want to handcuff me?”
Indeed, what is Britain afraid of? My once liberal homeland has allowed Orwell-style rules to infiltrate every sector of society—leading to arrests at soccer games, in the public square, and even at people’s own doorsteps.”
I don't understand Trump's insistent desire to negotiate with Putin.
All versions about this "distancing Russia from China" are groundless.
Over three years of aggression against Ukraine, Russia has experienced economic, social and moral shock, emerged from it stronger economically, ready to send hundreds of thousands of people to war and completely morally perverted.
The low level of training of the army is compensated by the number of soldiers sent to war. Low-tech weapons and imperfect equipment are compensated by the transition of industry to the production of a huge number of low-tech cheap weapons, and the construction of new military factories provides employment and orders for military enterprises.
An alliance with China, Iran and North Korea, expanding influence in the Middle East and Africa creates opportunities to maneuver and challenge at the international level.
What motivation could Putin have to abandon his aggressive plans to seize all of Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova, Kazakhstan, part (or all) of Poland? What can stop him from continuing to cut Europe into pieces, constantly making agreements with those who want to appease him and foolishly believe that appeasement will stop his plans? If someone believes that something can be achieved through negotiations and agreements with Russia, then I am ready to listen to arguments on which Putin can stop as a result of negotiations, because I do not see any at all.
"I don't understand Trump's insistent desire to negotiate with Putin."
Trump's America is still a global power and must have some form of relations with the other great powers. That in itself already means that his people would need to speak with Putin's people. But also, the concept of American national interest under Trump is quite different than that under Biden.
Biden's America had a strategic concept according to which America's position in the world is enhanced by the promotion of liberal democracy (and numerous related concepts) around the world. Trump cares more about hard power and national wealth. He has no objection to Russia having a sphere of influence, and regards the new cold war with Russia as completely unnecessary.
Meanwhile, if a smaller state (like Ukraine) wants security from America, there needs to be something in it for America - and according to the new criteria. Trump has no interest in intruding into Russia's sphere of influence, just for the sake of democracy. He offered Ukraine the opportunity to give America an economic stake in Ukraine's security, but Zelensky turned it down.
However that works out, Trump's strategic priority is relations with the other big powers of the world, and that includes Russia. Perhaps he will eventually discover a genuine strategic conflict with Putin, but first he has to unwind the unwanted entanglements created by his predecessors.
First. Roosevelt's America and Churchill's Great Britain did not lose their status as global powers when they refused to cooperate with Hitler's Germany until the Nazis were completely defeated.
And Trump's America will not only not lose its status as a global power if it does not encourage the aggressor, but will also avoid subsequent accusations that history has brought against all of Hitler's allies. They are still trying to get rid of their shameful legacy.
There are enough global non-toxic powers in the world with which America will be more comfortable and safer.
Second. Trump offered Ukraine not protection, but capitulation. Because America cannot protect Ukraine, and as you rightly noted, Trump is not going to protect Ukraine.
The only possible option is capitulation on Putin's terms, which is sometimes called a "ceasefire" or "end of war" in your language.
Wars do not stop without guarantees, and Trump has not given Ukraine any guarantees and is not going to give them.
The maximum that Ukraine will get is a short ceasefire, on a line that is not favorable to Ukraine, which will give Putin the opportunity to continue the war at any time on more favorable terms.
So it is more like trading glass beads among natives.
Thirdly, Ukraine is not able to give America anything while the war is going on, and if you understand anything about rare earth metals, then development and extraction is possible only after the full restoration of Ukraine's energy potential, and this will not happen for the next 10-15 years. So the entire agreement is a fiction. The parties promise to give each other something that they cannot give. Ask, what is the Profit? Only exclusively for the victory picture for a few hours (days, weeks) when Trump declares that he "stopped the war".
As you said, Trump (and Trump's America) have no intention of protecting Ukraine and helping Ukraine, but even having received benefits, he will not be able to protect Ukraine, but will do the same thing as Biden did (although he had other goals and interests) - imitate help, prolonging Ukraine's agony and not preventing Putin from achieving his goals (He is going to negotiate with him, right? Did I understand correctly?). Naturally, Zelensky refused such a subtle form of losing sovereignty and defeating his country.
And I do not blame him for doing it very abruptly. If you offered me capitulation to the enemy in exchange for meaningless promises, I would talk to you in the same way.
People here might heavily disagree with this suggestion but there was a good Twitter thread describing how the existing French nuclear deterrent could be turned into a crude European wide deterrent quite quickly.
The REAL interesting thing is how many people on social media outside of France are embracing this idea and are basically saying lets make it happen whatever the cost.
This op-ed from Ross Douthat at the New York Times hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly right. If you can get through the paywall, it’s with a look.
It's exactly wrong. The NYT piece is yet another dreary re-mastication of Putin's talking points. "Ukraine can't win, never NATO, negotiation is salvation..." You do know those talking points, right? And you are endorsing them? Really?
Just a quick word of warning, the man is not interested in your facts and analysis. He wants your wheels spinning in the mud so that your time is wasted.
You got that right. It's exactly what I was taught in my brief brush with Soviet agitprop training in the 1960s: keep shouting them down, make them give up in despair... Still, when we ignore Russian narratives their memes eventually become "what everyone knows" -- as we are already seeing here. So what is the correct response, in your opinion?
Treat honest interlocuters with the respect they deserve.
When Claire posts an article with a mountain of evidence and it receives a response that simply ignores the mountain and expounds needlessly on a tangent... this is not the work of an honest man. It's the work of a fool or an shitstain.
Wigwag is no fool. He's wasting her time with intent and gets treated as such.
The Trump apologists often say aligning with Russia is necessary -- regardless of how many small democratic countries need to be sacrificed -- to allow us to focus on China. But if this is what we have to become to do that -- a mafia state -- what's the point? Who cares whether the US or China "wins" economically if both countries are morally bankrupt?
It's an absurd argument strategically, too. The only hope we have of matching China is *with* our allies, a point lost on both WIgWag and Roth Douhat above. If it's us against China, they'll steamroller us. (If you think our alliances are "too expensive", just you wait until China stages its own Pearl Harbor and we're on our own.)
Claire, you’re conflating an asset with an albatross. Our European allies just don’t bring that much to the table. They don’t bring nothing, but they don’t bring a lot because they’re dysfunctional, militarily weak, economically challenged and increasingly illiberal. The only reason Europe is currently discussing dramatic increases in defense expenditures is because Trump’s belligerence has provided the motivation.
For the United States to take on China, it needs to focus on Asia and it needs to get its house in order, especially its manufacturing capabilities. It needs to stop wasting money and resources on DEI efforts. Most importantly, it needs to stop wasting trillions of dollars on forever wars that we always lose.
Our European allies can cry like stuck pigs all day long; it changes nothing. Trump won’t treat them with respect until they have something valuable to contribute. If they really could offer assistance in a competition with China, Trump would be less inclined to dismiss them.
The best way for them to prove they are more of an asset that an albatross is to step up to the plate and actually solve the Ukraine crisis on their own. If they can do that, then it would be more realistic to conclude that they have something invaluable to offer.
The Europeans, despite the dysfunctionality you correctly identify, bring far more to the table than Russia, who is still dependent on German machine tools and software to keep its manufacturing going. Russia brings nothing but nuclear weapons, which the U.S. already has in abundance. The Trump administration still treats Russia as if it were the USSR in 1947 when it‘s really more like the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Russia can’t really afford to become too dependent on China, the U.S. has a lot of leverage which Trump is squandering. Moreover, the U.S. might inadvertently push Europe to develop closer ties with China, which would really be stupid.
How much do you think the U.S. was actually spending on DEI efforts? My impression is that negative impacts from DEI were more pronounced in academia and the private sector. In any case it is a bizarre waste of resources to make dismantling DEI aggressively and disruptively the number one priority of the administration, it would have been easy enough to just wind them down. The DOGE approach shows how ideologically determined this administration‘s actions are.
Trump has his critics completely discombobulated. Thanks to him, they’re suffering with the vapors. Sadly for them, their primal screams (and as Claire’s post demonstrates) silly metaphors is all they have left. As their world view crumbles around them, the foreign policy Mandarins, the intellectuals, the professoriate and their fellow travelers in the chattering classes most be wondering how that dumb thug from Queens, New York got the better of them. On that score, at least they’re right. Trump is beating them into submission with a stick. I admit it’s uncharitable, but there’s something satisfying about watching the preachy, overeducated goons who once ruled the roost getting their comeuppance.
In only five weeks, Trump and his team have driven a stake through the heart of the neoliberal system governing American domestic policy. I’m not sure, but I think it’s possible that the contretemps that took place in the Oval Office might finally drive a stake through the heart of America’s neoconservative foreign policy.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have both passed their use by date. Clinging to them was a fool’s errand. It took Trump to send those stale ideologies packing.
It's cute that you don't even wear the mask anymore. Just the cheerleading the pigs becoming farmers. I'm glad we could smell you before it slipped.
edit - good place to remind everyone who's getting pulled into your act of Motte and Bailey:
He does not believe his words. He's been coopting the language of liberalism for his ends for years, and his ends benefit China and Russia more than us. He is what Popper warned us about.
Some time after 9/11, Bruce Sterling wrote an article for Wired in which he said that the foreign policy intelligentsia of Washington DC were dreaming up a new world order in which (my paraphrase) America would be the world police, and every other country had to stay within their borders.
Trump is restoring the idea of spheres of influence, and in a paradigm where order flows from the personality of great leaders, rather than from anything "rules-based". In this respect, I think Claire is right when she diagnoses the spirit of the age as "Caesarism".
I think Trump's utopia would be a Caesarist version of the 1990s. No concession in American hard power, America still as number one, but trade rather than war as the ideal everywhere, and without any particular concern for how other countries govern themselves. A Zeihan-esque vision in some ways.
If this was Trump's goal he(or JD) would have demanded France give up its nuclear weapons in there meeting with Emmanuel Macron earlier this week. They did not. In fact it is France's nuclear weapons that more than anything stand in the way of a Russo-American global condominium. Russia cannot take over Europe as a sphere of influence as long as France has nukes.
As a purely operational matter, is it true that France and England cannot physically launch their atomic weapons without America "turning the other key"?
No, definitely not in the case of France and mostly not in the case of the UK. In the case of the UK, they are dependent on US support and servicing. So, if Trump cutoff support to the UK tomorrow with a year let's say the UK deterrent capability could be degraded due to lack of servicing.
I get what you are saying although I have to think the Kremlin must be awfully disappointed by the statements from the likes of Marine Le Pen and Jean Luc Melenchon praising Zelensky and blasting Trump. In a weird real-politik way Russia taking France might have been more sustainable in the long term than Russia taking over the US. As you pointed out several years ago there is a strain of Russo philia across French society that doesn't exist in America. For the vast majority of American including the majority of Trump supporters over say 35 or even 30 Russia is still the bad guy. I was only born in 1983 so I don't have a lot of memories of the Cold War but even I remember seeing the first Pierce Brosnan era James Bond movie, Goldeneye at the movie theater in 1993 and how in the opening scene it is very evident the Russians or at least the Soviet Russians are the bad guys.
FWIW reviewing the French press headlines from today apparently MLP is now all over the place on the Zelensky vs Trump but my overall impression is everyone in France knows this isn't great territory for the far right at the moment. Even Bardella gets this even if MLP does not. Other far right types like Eric Ciotti seem to be trying to avoid commenting altogether.
Much like what is happening in Canada my guess is right Trump has 80/20 disapproval/approval rating in France. Much of the 20% approval is within the far right but even then, are a lot, RN voters according to previous polling that don't like Trump as well. I have never been naive enough to think the RN couldn't win a French election, but I am pretty sure they are never going to win one on an explicitly pro Trump platform.
Mitchell, I agree with you; a rules based order based on international law is viable only as long as there’s a sheriff. Americans have concluded that the costs of maintaining the constabulary now outweigh the benefits.
Long time readers of Claire’s Substack know that she’s argued eloquently and somewhat convincingly that the United States accrues remarkable benefits by serving as the world’s policeman. One example is the extraordinary benefit that accrues to the United States from controlling the world’s reserve currency.
The problem is that the war in Ukraine was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Americans have watched for decades the subsidies that flowed from our country to our European allies and to Japan and Korea. The Europeans point with pride to the fact that they’ve given as much or maybe a little bit more to Ukraine than the United States has. Millions of Americans look at this and can’t help but notice that for Europe, Ukraine and Russia are next door neighbors while Americans benefit from the protection afforded by a large ocean. They wonder, shouldn’t the Europeans be spending three or four times more on Ukraine than the United States is?
My guess is that there are very few Americans who would claim that Putin’s Russia shares American values. The problem is that millions of Americans are beginning to wonder if our European allies still share American values. They’re right to wonder whether nations that arrest citizens for silently praying in the vicinity of abortion clinics share American values. They’re also right to wonder whether nations that imprison citizens for tweets the government doesn’t like share American values. Cancelling elections that a disfavored political party is about to win isn’t exactly an American value (even if Democrats and Republicans would love to be able to do the same thing if the circumstances called for it). Welcoming many millions of immigrants who come from nations where pluralism is a foreign concept also makes Americans skeptical.
Europe and the United States are drifting apart. The fault lies almost entirely with the Europeans.
European countries are generally far more conservative on abortion rights than the US. Bring your pregnant mistress here to Austria, Poland or Italy and try and get an abortion. Good luck.
Agree with you that "a rules based order based on international law is viable only as long as there’s a sheriff." But I want to challenge your next, very vague statement: "Americans have concluded that the costs of maintaining the constabulary now outweigh the benefits."
First of all, which Americans? The 49.8% of the electorate that voted for Trump, who represent only about a third of all adult American citizens? [This is how I calculated that figure: 245 million Americans were eligible to vote in the 2024 election. 155 million ballots were cast, so about 36% of the voting-eligible population did not vote, meaning those who voted were 64% of Americans. 49.8% of them gave their vote to Trump. Now we're down to about a third of Americans {https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election}]. I doubt that the third that didn't vote for Trump have concluded that.
Secondly, does the voting-eligible population understand the benefits? A third of them pay no attention to politics, which is why they don't vote. You're telling me these low-information voters know anything about the Pax Americana? I find that hard to believe. As to the benefit to Americans of the Pax Americana, there’s more than controlling the world’s reserve currency. If you think you can’t afford the costs of keeping the peace, wait till you see what it costs without it.
Further, to talk about costs without also citing the benefits is disingenuous and politically motivated. This is what Republicans do. It is so easy to convince Americans they're being ripped off and to demonize others because those dispositions are inherent in many human beings. Any charismatic malignant narcissist can exploit that. We once had a president that called us to our better angels. We now have one that exploits our lesser ones.
Finally, as to the Europeans and how much $$ they put up for their own security, that can all be negotiated without bullying and humiliating them. And it doesn't justify taking Russia's side in their war on Ukraine, or forgetting about their war crimes, the most horrible, IMO, taking Ukrainian children as prisoners of war. Those children have been traumatized and their psyches damaged for the rest of their lives.
Sandy, your remarks about the percent of registered voters who actually go to the polls and the percentage of Americans who bother to register at all or participate in politics applies to most elections. The United States has a chronically low turn out rate. As for how educated the electorate is, that’s a subjective issue. Voters care what they care about. They prioritize what they prioritize. Complain if you want to that they’re not as knowledgeable about certain issues as you wish they were but it’s a futile endeavor that doesn’t change anything.
I don’t think Trump won because voters were too stupid to know any better. If that’s what you think, that’s fine but obviously the voters had a pretty good idea of what his plans were (including the pardons) and they voted for him either because they supported all or most of his plans or, at the very least, they preferred it to the alternative plans offered by Harris.
Do you think a plurality of voters chose Trump because they believed he would maintain the status quo or make small changes around the margins? I don’t. I think that Trump voters were mad as hell and not willing to take it any more.
Trump may not be appealing to the better angels of our nature, but he is doing something that few presidents do: he’s actually keeping his campaign promises. He’s ripping down the rotten timbers of American domestic policy and he’s eviscersting the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that’s led to one failed war after the next that accomplished nothing but wasting trillions of dollars and robbing too many American service members of their arms, legs or even their lives.
Trump has maybe four years to change the world but probably only two. The party out of power usually wins the congressional elections two years into a president’s second term; if it happens (it probably will) it won’t help Trump. As he approaches lame duck status, even Congressional Republicans may look at him more skeptically. It’s just the way American politics works.
Don’t worry; the empire always strikes back. Revolutions are always followed by counterrevolutions. Personally I hope what Claire Berlinski fears. I hope that the changes to our Alliance structure and to American foreign policy are irrevocable. I’m not sure they are. My fingers are crossed.
Thank you for replying but I don’t have to time to respond to this. Even if I didn’t have anything else to do with my time, I’m afraid it would lead to an endless round of discussion with no facts agreed upon which would be an enormous waste of time for me.
Give it a rest about Europeans "arresting citizen for silently praying in the vicinity of abortion clinics." This was * one* citizen, after which the Home Secretary wrote to every police force in the nation to tell them that that prayer was not a criminal offense; the police apologized to her; and she won a large settlement after suing for wrongful arrest. Don't you ever bother to look up these fairytales you hear from JD Vance? Meanwhile., Trump is posting things like this:
@realDonaldTrump As a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history, quite naturally, here come the Fake books and stories with the so-called “anonymous,” or “off the record,” quotes. At some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general, to find out whether or not these “anonymous sources” even exist, which they largely do not. They are made up, defamatory fiction, and a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty. I’ll do it as a service to our Country. Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!
Meanwhile, he's filing nuisance lawsuits against journalists--and releasing thousands of violent criminals for one reason only: to service as his Freikorps. They have so intimidated the American Congress that we now see report after report indicating that they dare not vote their conscience for fear these people will kill their kids. Don't even try to pretend that Americans would know, no less care, about *any* of the events you believe to be transpiring in Europe absent the incessant, hyperactive efforts of Russian propagandists, working hand in glove with our gullible far-right media, to tell them these lies incessantly. For God's sake: Russia is doing this with the deliberate goal of severing the Transatlantic alliance. Why do you think they're doing that, WigWag? Why do you think breaking up the EU and NATO are the relentless focus of Russian propaganda? Why do you think they're saturating Americans in stories that suggest that Europe "doesn't share Americans' values," and vice-versa? Do you think it's their commitment to journalistic excellence? Do you think it's because they love us so much that they want us to know the truth about our allies? [edited for vulgarity and setting a bad example.]
Actually, the UK citizen that you mentioned, Isabel Vaughn-Spruce was arrested not once for the same offense but twice. She was arrested in Birmingham in 2022 and 2023. Adam Smith-Connor was convicted in 2024 for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic in Bournemouth.
Over 100 British subjects have been arrested for social media posts that the government found objectionable. I’m quite sure that most if not all of these posts were repugnant. It doesn’t matter what the content was. Arresting people for what they say or write is censorship and the censors are always the bad guys. Given it’s druthers, the EU would impose an all-consuming censorship regime. There’s nothing about that desire of the EU that’s congruent with American views of pluralism.
Russian propaganda has nothing to do with Europe’s rejection of freedom, pluralism and democracy. It’s not Russian propaganda that’s the biggest problem, it’s the desperate attempts of hypereducated European elites to silence the voices of ordinary people who those elites believe are too uncouth to be entitled to free expression.
I don’t like everything Trump has done, but nothing he has done comes close to approaching the venality of European elites when it comes to freedom.
As for your comment about the pardons of the January 6th prisoners, Trump was unambiguous during the election campaign that he planned to issue pardons. By voting for him, the majority of Americans indicated either that they were good with the pardons or didn’t care one way or the other.
A politician who keeps his promises. Who could have believed that we would ever see it?
“Russian propaganda has nothing to do with Europe’s rejection of freedom,”
It is not rejection of freedom. To the contrary, Europe is trying to RETAIN freedom while having to defend itself against "immigration," nascent fascist recrudescence and, well, Russian propaganda. But sure, let's call it "censorship." Your point here is itself Russian propaganda, as is the rest of that paragraph of yours. You know this.
“Arresting people for what they say or write is censorship” No, it is the application of defamation, incitement, privacy, and similar laws limiting free speech. You do know that what people (and also "people") say and write can be easily weaponized, right? Hence laws.
“[T]he censors are always the bad guys.” You're very intelligent, so surely you understand that actual censorship — as opposed to policing — is itself an act of free speech (on the part of the authorities). Any 15-year-old will tell you that “You cannot put limits on liberty without violating its defining principle” — but you're not a kid, so please think this through.
Silent Prayer: As Claire noted, we've been here before and you didn't seem willing to grasp the idea of a Public Space Protection Order then so perhaps a different tack may have better results.
Yes, the U.S. also has laws preventing demonstrations that might inhibit women from entering abortion clinics. The idea is to prevent women or abortion providers from being intimidated. These laws do not prevent American citizens from praying silently (in their own minds) in the vicinity of abortion clinics as long as they don’t prevent women or providers from entering the clinics and as long as they don’t trespass on private property. Law enforcement personnel would be precluded from questioning citizens about whether they are praying. Doing so would violate the First Amendment. The principles established by the First Amendment clearly don’t have resonance in your country.
Several Americans were prosecuted and convicted of demonstrating (not praying silently) in the vicinity of abortion clinics. These cases were brought by the Biden Administration; an Administration that had no more respect for pluralism than Prime Minister Two-Tier. Like Starmer, Biden wished he coukd imprison people for publishing nasty tweets. Sadly for him but happily for Americans, the First Amendment precluded that.
By the way, the Americans convicted of demonstrating illegally in proximity to abortion clinics were all pardoned by Trump. All of this suggests that unlike Biden and Starmer, Trump actually believes in freedom of expression.
In some ways it doesn't matter. Europe is far more important to the US economically than Russia. Moreover Europe is far more important to Russia than the US itself. Trump removing US sanctions on Russia helps Russia a bit especially when trading with the likes of Gulf States but France, Germany, and the UK were all far more important to the Russia economy pre-war the US itself was. Hence I suspect this is a major conflict in the current Trump-Putin negotiations.
Is the objective to give smug globalists their comeuppance or to improve the lives of Americans? If the former, Bravo. If the latter, then look at Argentina since 1900 to see where this is going. It’s not up.
Aditya, I don’t think the goal is to give the globalists their comeuppance, it’s merely a gratifying side-effect. Michael Schellenberger, in his Substack makes an interesting point when he says,
“We go to Europe, where they have universal healthcare, work 35 hours a week, and retire at a young age and ask ourselves: why can’t we have this? Why are we paying for this for others and not ourselves? Europe enjoys a high quality of life in large part because we pay for all or a large part of its security. And in return, we get disrespect and entitlement.”
Since at least the Administration of George H.W. Bush, the Europeans have been warned that Americans were sick and tired of their free riding. European leaders ignored those warnings until finally, at long last, it was too late.
I disagree with Trump when he accuses Zelensky of starting the war; that accusation is ridiculous. The two men who started this war were Vladamir Putin and Joe Biden. Putin never believed that Ukraine was a real country and he pined for the glory days of the Soviet Union. Joe Biden, after defeating Trump, pined to show the world that post-Trump, “America was back.” He thought a war between Ukraine and Russia was, on balance, positive for the United States because it would cut Russian capabilities down a notch or two and maybe even result in Putin’s downfall. That’s why Biden did everything he could (including refusing to take Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table) to goad Putin into invading. A war between Ukraine and Russia was the proxy war of Biden’s fondest dreams. Biden got his war; Putin was only too happy to oblige.
As you will remember, at the war’s inception, Erdogan, Macron and Naftali Bennett all offered to mediate. Biden nixed all of those efforts. Why do you think he did that? In the end, Putin’s and Biden’s nostalgia for the Cold War was fulfilled and the poor Ukrainians paid the price.
My hope is that this final catastrophe kills the globalist neoconservative agenda once and for all. For the United States that agenda has been disastrous. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States lost twice in Iraq. We were ignobly defeated by the rag-tag Taliban and now, the impending disaster in Ukraine may turn out to be the biggest defeat of all. Is it any wonder that so many Americans want neoconservatism dead and buried?
After the blow-up in the Oval Office, it was fascinating watching so many European nations offering words of support for Ukraine. The problem is that Europe has little to offer other than words. Yes, they’ve been generous to Ukraine but the European nations are running out of military stockpiles to send and their economic incompetence means they are also running out of money to send.
Despite their economic challenges, the European nations are some of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Two European nations possess nuclear weapons (assuming they’ve been maintained and could still explode). If Europe is so enamored of Ukraine, it’s time for Europe to put its money where its mouth is. If that requires dipping into the funds it needs for its social safety net, that’s too bad. That’s what the United States has been doing for decades.
„We go to Europe, where they have universal healthcare, work 35 hours a week, and retire at a young age and ask ourselves: why can’t we have this“
It’s not because the US is paying for Europe. It’s because Europeans pay higher taxes than Americans do. Is Schellenberger really that stupid or is he just playing the usual GOP game of distracting the masses with shiny baubles so they don’t come after the rich with pitchforks?
Nah, no need to dip into anything. Just use the $300 billion Russia has parked there, and Ukraine wins. But they won't do that. Why do you think that is?
Well one reason is that if the United States or Europe starts confiscating Russian reserves in Western banking institutions it risks jeopardizing the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Countries will naturally be reluctant to hold American dollars in American or European banks if they believe those reserves are subject to confiscation. That’s the most important reason that Biden and the European leaders didn’t do it despite their strong inclination to do so. Why do you think they refused to confiscate the Russian funds?
Of course with Trump in power confiscation of Russian assets is off the table.
It's simple. Refrain from genocidal invasions of convenience, and no one will touch your reserves. Put that right in the contract, if you like.
But consider: countries are already raiding Russian reserves for Ukraine -- just the interest, not the principal. That's a distinction without a difference. It's Russia's money either way; so why not take the whole thing?
My theory is that the interest is just a trickle which can't change anything decisively. The whole base $300+ billion would result in Ukraine winning militarily in short order. And that's the problem. Victory for Ukraine is fine, bring it on. But it would mean defeat for Russia by definition, and the west does not want to see Russia suffer a loss in this way. That's also why we don't have meaningful sanctions against Russia even now and don't supply weapons in decent amounts.
In short, the war there is not mainly about Ukraine, but pretty much entirely about Russia. If Russia collapses, then so does a lot of other stuff. Like, a LOT. So Russia must not lose. That's all.
George, your comment here reminds me of a remark once made by Oscar Wilde. “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants and the other is getting it.”
You might be right. Perhaps the Western powers want Russia defeated but they are so afraid of the consequences of a Russian defeat that they refused to do what they needed to do to insure a Russian defeat.
That could also apply to Biden’s unwillingness to confiscate the Russian assets and provide those assets to Ukraine. Maybe he badly wanted to do it but he was too afraid of the consequences.
Of course, it’s all academic now. Trump will not be confiscating Russia’s reserves and its doubtful that much more American aid will flow to Ukraine. Europe has limited military stocks it can send and its finances inhibit its ability to send sufficient amounts of money to sustain Ukraine in the long run.
All of this means that at best, Ukraine will have to accept an armistice with unattractive terms or it will be utterly defeated.
So much of this was predictable at the beginning of the war. Sadly the bipartisan neocon consensus wanted this war in the worst way. Putin was happy to oblige. Chalk it up as just one more in a long line of catastrophies gestated by globalist neocons. These neocons have the reverse Midas Touch. Everything they lay their hands on turns into you know what.
A useful warning not to go near Mr Schellenberger's substack if that's the quality of his argument.
It is of course reasonable to ask whether the burden of defence spending in NATO is fair, whether the US getting a good return on its existing defence commitments, should other powers be paying more (my answers are roughly no, yes, and yes); but that's a separate question from sovereign states' differing policy priorities on social safety nets.
Very roughly the US spends $900bn a year on defence, and Europe (not just EU) has a GDP of around $30tn. I can't be certain how much US expenditure is focused on Europe; surely less than 1/2. If it were 1/3, that would be $300bn or about 1% of Europe's GDP and 2% of total government spending. That's a decent chunk of state budgets but *nothing like as much as spent on social provisions* - in the UK health and pension provision cost about ten times the defence budget; most european countries spend relatively more. Universal healthcare ain't going away even if defence spending doubles, as I expect it will.
Bottom line: You can have this! *Of course* the US can afford universal healthcare (on most models, it would be cheaper overall than the current system, as in the tax uplift would be less than average current premiums), or European levels of pension-cover, if that's what people vote for. But they don't. This has almost zero connection to defence spending implied by an NATO commitment to European defence, and everything to do with views about the overall level of taxation and what government should be in the business of providing for citizens.
Or is Mr Schellenberger saying he'd be happy to keep defending Europe, as long as they dismantle their social healthcare systems and cut workers holiday entitlements, with no impact whatever on US spending of any kind? Bizarre.
“It is of course reasonable to ask whether the burden of defence spending in NATO is fair, whether the US getting a good return on its existing defence commitments, should other powers be paying more (my answers are roughly no, yes, and yes); but that's a separate question from sovereign states' differing policy priorities on social safety nets.” (Tom Flemming)
That’s absolutely true. It’s also absolutely true that Europe should be the primary defender of Ukraine if it wants Ukraine defended.
My question was how the meeting helped Americans. It may well be that it gave Europe the jolt it needed to stand on its own two feet, and allow US government resources to be used elsewhere.
It may also be another signal, along with tariffs, that the priorities of the American people is much more inward looking, seeking a cult of personality government.
Argentina is an example of a wealthy country that was plunged into middle income status by moving in those directions. Argentina isn’t terrible and becoming like that may be just fine with Americans.
"Danish grocery chain to distinguish European from US goods"
This is dated 02/27 - no idea how big that supermarket chain is but not boycotting only labelling seems smart to me quite in line w Trudeau's speech after which his party became a player again
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion in The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you."[20] In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."
Very interesting Map - explains a lot why Trump needs Zelensky out of the way so he can get the big grab money deal w Putin into dry towels (German transl mine) - right now I see only German text - will keep looking - my suspicion: lots & lots of those deals will find their way into dishonest pockets.
I’m not sure Vance is a sidekick. He seems more like the ring leader/puppet master. Trump seems to me cognitively manipulated by whoever the last person he talks to. Macron and Starmer did a number on him to the point that he had genuinely forgotten he had called Zelensky a dictator. But this time vance got himself involved and took over the meeting and guided it to where he wanted to go. He’s not to me a syncophant or a sidekick anymore - he is the puppet master. I don’t think we are better off if trump goes and Vance is president. After yesterday I half expect Vance to article 25 the man himself at some point in the future. In so many frustrating ways Vance is the opposite type of VP that Harris was. And in so many ways exactly the VP that Harris needed to be - taking control in light of a cognitively dysfunctional president, and proving the ability to do the job And no, Starmer will not be able to manipulate vance the same way he was able to manipulate Trump. there is no manipulating Vance.
My impression is that Vance is indifferently educated, reactive, and poor at thinking on his feet. (Like Harris, though not as bad.) This makes him unfit to run a construction company, much less the world's most complicated country.
From the complete breakdown of rules in Austrian parliament as witnessed and described by Mark Twain to the start of WW1 it took 14 years. I wish I knew when that clock started now. Yesterday or earlier? Born in a WW2 I very much want to not die in one
The United States is on the way to becoming a rogue state, if it is not there already. One of the mistakes those observing the understood rules of the evolved international order can make is to seek to negotiate with states like Russia, that use and abuse the rules cynically. Such is now the US. The deliberate flouting of norms and the mistreatment of those seeking negotiated solutions is needs concerted resistance throughput the international community. Donald Trump has made it difficult if not impossible to remove him from domestic pressure, and appears to be consolidating his power, to rule as a dictator in whatever means he can manage. As he continues to wreak havoc internationally not only with Ukraine but far more widely, the resolve of those who regard themselves as America's friends is going to be needed. As you say, Claire, Trump is a traitor and needs removal. Only international pressure will create the domestic potential.
What I witnessed in that oval office in that moment of “great television” was absolutely disgusting and repulsive. The way Zelensky was mocked and chided, even by Marjorie Taylor Green’s boyfriend, for not wearing a suit — was revolting. The whole scene was simply unbelievable, though we’ve had hints that Trump was not enthused about defending Ukraine… even so, I was stunned. If my tone appears hysterical and my language hyperbolic - no. I mean, there’s no other way to describe this except with language so extremely explosive and high-pitched. Maybe instead I could substitute —- stunned silence. It’s like a room has been emptied violently and suddenly and a void created. Now, what enters? It likely won’t be anything good. Nothing good at all.
Share your anger Claire. I couldn't even read your take until today.
Last century Fascism fought a war against Europe and the USA and lost.
This century begins with a world alliance against liberal democracy.
The questions have shifted so fast.
Gone is the idea of the USA defending liberal democracy in Europe.
The new question arises, will Europe support the American Republic or its collapse?
The blue states might wanna ask for some military aid from Ukraine, those drones might come in handy.
This episode highlights the dangers of appeasement in the face of authoritarian aggression; when negotiation is merely a disguise for coercion, yielding only emboldens the oppressor. Schuschnigg’s attempt to maintain Austria’s sovereignty through diplomacy was met not with reasoned discussion but with threats and ultimatums, demonstrating that autocrats do not respect concessions—they exploit them. History repeatedly shows that when democratic nations or leaders hesitate to confront bullies, they pave the way for further domination, often at a far greater cost. The Anschluss was not merely the absorption of Austria but a chilling precursor to Hitler’s broader ambitions, which would soon engulf Europe in war. This moment serves as a stark warning for modern geopolitics: when tyrants posture and intimidate, failing to push back decisively only invites further aggression, often with devastating consequences.
I am a subscriber but it will not let me listen to this submission. Can you help me?
There is something seriously wrong with Europe in general and the UK in particular. This is from the “Free Press” Substack.
“Rose Docherty, a 74-year-old grandmother, was put in handcuffs and arrested in Scotland last month.
Her crime?
Standing outside a Glasgow hospital where abortions are performed and holding up a sign that said: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”
Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, which Docherty stood next to, is located within a “Safe Access Zone” where exerting any “influence” over those seeking or providing abortions is banned. Praying silently—or even parking a car with a pro-life bumper sticker on it—inside the zone may violate this rule.
“I was approaching no one on that day. I wasn’t calling out. I was standing quietly by the roadside,” Docherty told The Free Press. “I am worried about a society that’s willing to lock up a 74-year-old grandmother for offering consensual conversation.”
She’s not the only one who is worried. Last month, Vice President J.D. Vance made the same point when he criticized European leaders for turning their backs on free speech.
“In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” he said in an address at the Munich Security Conference on February 14. “Perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs.”
That speech sparked immediate outrage. German defense minister Boris Pistorius said Vance’s comments were “not acceptable." The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Vance was “trying to pick a fight.” Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, added his voice to the chorus, calling Vance “just wrong.” Last week at the White House, British prime minister Keir Starmer also hit back at Vance, insisting: “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”
But as readers of The Free Press know, Vance is right. Free speech is most definitely on the wane in Europe, especially in the UK. And the case of Rose Docherty, who was arrested on February 19, just five days after Vance gave his Munich speech, is not the only example of the problem. As I reported for The Free Press last October, at least half a dozen people have been arrested and in some cases prosecuted over the last few years for silently protesting or praying in abortion buffer zones across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Docherty, who is Catholic, said she stood at the main road near the hospital and displayed her sign for about 90 minutes during lunchtime before two police officers showed up. When they asked her if she knew she was in a buffer zone, she said yes but that she was only inviting “consensual conversation.” After that, she was handcuffed, told she was being charged with breaching the abortion “safe access” law, and hauled off to the police station. There, she was searched, swabbed for DNA, and had her mugshot and fingerprints taken before being released.
She said she is now waiting to hear if there’s enough evidence to prosecute her. If convicted, she could face a fine of up to £10,000 ($12,706).
“It was a surreal experience,” Docherty told me. “I just thought, I’m a 74-year-old elderly woman—what are you afraid of that you feel that you want to handcuff me?”
Indeed, what is Britain afraid of? My once liberal homeland has allowed Orwell-style rules to infiltrate every sector of society—leading to arrests at soccer games, in the public square, and even at people’s own doorsteps.”
I don't understand Trump's insistent desire to negotiate with Putin.
All versions about this "distancing Russia from China" are groundless.
Over three years of aggression against Ukraine, Russia has experienced economic, social and moral shock, emerged from it stronger economically, ready to send hundreds of thousands of people to war and completely morally perverted.
The low level of training of the army is compensated by the number of soldiers sent to war. Low-tech weapons and imperfect equipment are compensated by the transition of industry to the production of a huge number of low-tech cheap weapons, and the construction of new military factories provides employment and orders for military enterprises.
An alliance with China, Iran and North Korea, expanding influence in the Middle East and Africa creates opportunities to maneuver and challenge at the international level.
What motivation could Putin have to abandon his aggressive plans to seize all of Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova, Kazakhstan, part (or all) of Poland? What can stop him from continuing to cut Europe into pieces, constantly making agreements with those who want to appease him and foolishly believe that appeasement will stop his plans? If someone believes that something can be achieved through negotiations and agreements with Russia, then I am ready to listen to arguments on which Putin can stop as a result of negotiations, because I do not see any at all.
"I don't understand Trump's insistent desire to negotiate with Putin."
Trump's America is still a global power and must have some form of relations with the other great powers. That in itself already means that his people would need to speak with Putin's people. But also, the concept of American national interest under Trump is quite different than that under Biden.
Biden's America had a strategic concept according to which America's position in the world is enhanced by the promotion of liberal democracy (and numerous related concepts) around the world. Trump cares more about hard power and national wealth. He has no objection to Russia having a sphere of influence, and regards the new cold war with Russia as completely unnecessary.
Meanwhile, if a smaller state (like Ukraine) wants security from America, there needs to be something in it for America - and according to the new criteria. Trump has no interest in intruding into Russia's sphere of influence, just for the sake of democracy. He offered Ukraine the opportunity to give America an economic stake in Ukraine's security, but Zelensky turned it down.
However that works out, Trump's strategic priority is relations with the other big powers of the world, and that includes Russia. Perhaps he will eventually discover a genuine strategic conflict with Putin, but first he has to unwind the unwanted entanglements created by his predecessors.
I wish I could upvote your comment, Mitchell ten times. You’ve said it perfectly.
Thank you for your reply.
First. Roosevelt's America and Churchill's Great Britain did not lose their status as global powers when they refused to cooperate with Hitler's Germany until the Nazis were completely defeated.
And Trump's America will not only not lose its status as a global power if it does not encourage the aggressor, but will also avoid subsequent accusations that history has brought against all of Hitler's allies. They are still trying to get rid of their shameful legacy.
There are enough global non-toxic powers in the world with which America will be more comfortable and safer.
Second. Trump offered Ukraine not protection, but capitulation. Because America cannot protect Ukraine, and as you rightly noted, Trump is not going to protect Ukraine.
The only possible option is capitulation on Putin's terms, which is sometimes called a "ceasefire" or "end of war" in your language.
Wars do not stop without guarantees, and Trump has not given Ukraine any guarantees and is not going to give them.
The maximum that Ukraine will get is a short ceasefire, on a line that is not favorable to Ukraine, which will give Putin the opportunity to continue the war at any time on more favorable terms.
So it is more like trading glass beads among natives.
Thirdly, Ukraine is not able to give America anything while the war is going on, and if you understand anything about rare earth metals, then development and extraction is possible only after the full restoration of Ukraine's energy potential, and this will not happen for the next 10-15 years. So the entire agreement is a fiction. The parties promise to give each other something that they cannot give. Ask, what is the Profit? Only exclusively for the victory picture for a few hours (days, weeks) when Trump declares that he "stopped the war".
As you said, Trump (and Trump's America) have no intention of protecting Ukraine and helping Ukraine, but even having received benefits, he will not be able to protect Ukraine, but will do the same thing as Biden did (although he had other goals and interests) - imitate help, prolonging Ukraine's agony and not preventing Putin from achieving his goals (He is going to negotiate with him, right? Did I understand correctly?). Naturally, Zelensky refused such a subtle form of losing sovereignty and defeating his country.
And I do not blame him for doing it very abruptly. If you offered me capitulation to the enemy in exchange for meaningless promises, I would talk to you in the same way.
People here might heavily disagree with this suggestion but there was a good Twitter thread describing how the existing French nuclear deterrent could be turned into a crude European wide deterrent quite quickly.
https://x.com/Etienne_Marcuz/status/1895786101635498352
The REAL interesting thing is how many people on social media outside of France are embracing this idea and are basically saying lets make it happen whatever the cost.
Right now in 🇩🇪 we wait if CDU/Merz will decide to get old parliament to agree to the necessary money.
New parliament would have to negotiate necessary majority w crazy opposition parties
This op-ed from Ross Douthat at the New York Times hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly right. If you can get through the paywall, it’s with a look.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/opinion/trump-vance-zelensky.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
It's exactly wrong. The NYT piece is yet another dreary re-mastication of Putin's talking points. "Ukraine can't win, never NATO, negotiation is salvation..." You do know those talking points, right? And you are endorsing them? Really?
George, Ross Douthat’s points are an accurate reflection of an unfortunate reality. Why don’t you tell me what you think he got wrong.
You would like me to refute Russia's geopolitical narrative? Sure, but I'm having a pretty good night, so not right now. Although soon, obviously.
Just a quick word of warning, the man is not interested in your facts and analysis. He wants your wheels spinning in the mud so that your time is wasted.
You got that right. It's exactly what I was taught in my brief brush with Soviet agitprop training in the 1960s: keep shouting them down, make them give up in despair... Still, when we ignore Russian narratives their memes eventually become "what everyone knows" -- as we are already seeing here. So what is the correct response, in your opinion?
Treat honest interlocuters with the respect they deserve.
When Claire posts an article with a mountain of evidence and it receives a response that simply ignores the mountain and expounds needlessly on a tangent... this is not the work of an honest man. It's the work of a fool or an shitstain.
Wigwag is no fool. He's wasting her time with intent and gets treated as such.
I hope you do.
The Trump apologists often say aligning with Russia is necessary -- regardless of how many small democratic countries need to be sacrificed -- to allow us to focus on China. But if this is what we have to become to do that -- a mafia state -- what's the point? Who cares whether the US or China "wins" economically if both countries are morally bankrupt?
It's an absurd argument strategically, too. The only hope we have of matching China is *with* our allies, a point lost on both WIgWag and Roth Douhat above. If it's us against China, they'll steamroller us. (If you think our alliances are "too expensive", just you wait until China stages its own Pearl Harbor and we're on our own.)
Claire, you’re conflating an asset with an albatross. Our European allies just don’t bring that much to the table. They don’t bring nothing, but they don’t bring a lot because they’re dysfunctional, militarily weak, economically challenged and increasingly illiberal. The only reason Europe is currently discussing dramatic increases in defense expenditures is because Trump’s belligerence has provided the motivation.
For the United States to take on China, it needs to focus on Asia and it needs to get its house in order, especially its manufacturing capabilities. It needs to stop wasting money and resources on DEI efforts. Most importantly, it needs to stop wasting trillions of dollars on forever wars that we always lose.
Our European allies can cry like stuck pigs all day long; it changes nothing. Trump won’t treat them with respect until they have something valuable to contribute. If they really could offer assistance in a competition with China, Trump would be less inclined to dismiss them.
The best way for them to prove they are more of an asset that an albatross is to step up to the plate and actually solve the Ukraine crisis on their own. If they can do that, then it would be more realistic to conclude that they have something invaluable to offer.
The Europeans, despite the dysfunctionality you correctly identify, bring far more to the table than Russia, who is still dependent on German machine tools and software to keep its manufacturing going. Russia brings nothing but nuclear weapons, which the U.S. already has in abundance. The Trump administration still treats Russia as if it were the USSR in 1947 when it‘s really more like the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Russia can’t really afford to become too dependent on China, the U.S. has a lot of leverage which Trump is squandering. Moreover, the U.S. might inadvertently push Europe to develop closer ties with China, which would really be stupid.
How much do you think the U.S. was actually spending on DEI efforts? My impression is that negative impacts from DEI were more pronounced in academia and the private sector. In any case it is a bizarre waste of resources to make dismantling DEI aggressively and disruptively the number one priority of the administration, it would have been easy enough to just wind them down. The DOGE approach shows how ideologically determined this administration‘s actions are.
Trump has his critics completely discombobulated. Thanks to him, they’re suffering with the vapors. Sadly for them, their primal screams (and as Claire’s post demonstrates) silly metaphors is all they have left. As their world view crumbles around them, the foreign policy Mandarins, the intellectuals, the professoriate and their fellow travelers in the chattering classes most be wondering how that dumb thug from Queens, New York got the better of them. On that score, at least they’re right. Trump is beating them into submission with a stick. I admit it’s uncharitable, but there’s something satisfying about watching the preachy, overeducated goons who once ruled the roost getting their comeuppance.
In only five weeks, Trump and his team have driven a stake through the heart of the neoliberal system governing American domestic policy. I’m not sure, but I think it’s possible that the contretemps that took place in the Oval Office might finally drive a stake through the heart of America’s neoconservative foreign policy.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have both passed their use by date. Clinging to them was a fool’s errand. It took Trump to send those stale ideologies packing.
Bravo!
It's cute that you don't even wear the mask anymore. Just the cheerleading the pigs becoming farmers. I'm glad we could smell you before it slipped.
edit - good place to remind everyone who's getting pulled into your act of Motte and Bailey:
He does not believe his words. He's been coopting the language of liberalism for his ends for years, and his ends benefit China and Russia more than us. He is what Popper warned us about.
Some time after 9/11, Bruce Sterling wrote an article for Wired in which he said that the foreign policy intelligentsia of Washington DC were dreaming up a new world order in which (my paraphrase) America would be the world police, and every other country had to stay within their borders.
Trump is restoring the idea of spheres of influence, and in a paradigm where order flows from the personality of great leaders, rather than from anything "rules-based". In this respect, I think Claire is right when she diagnoses the spirit of the age as "Caesarism".
I think Trump's utopia would be a Caesarist version of the 1990s. No concession in American hard power, America still as number one, but trade rather than war as the ideal everywhere, and without any particular concern for how other countries govern themselves. A Zeihan-esque vision in some ways.
If this was Trump's goal he(or JD) would have demanded France give up its nuclear weapons in there meeting with Emmanuel Macron earlier this week. They did not. In fact it is France's nuclear weapons that more than anything stand in the way of a Russo-American global condominium. Russia cannot take over Europe as a sphere of influence as long as France has nukes.
As a purely operational matter, is it true that France and England cannot physically launch their atomic weapons without America "turning the other key"?
No, definitely not in the case of France and mostly not in the case of the UK. In the case of the UK, they are dependent on US support and servicing. So, if Trump cutoff support to the UK tomorrow with a year let's say the UK deterrent capability could be degraded due to lack of servicing.
Yes it can.
It took over the US, after all.
Only because of Trump and his malignant narcissism. Macron and the other European leaders are not ill.
I get what you are saying although I have to think the Kremlin must be awfully disappointed by the statements from the likes of Marine Le Pen and Jean Luc Melenchon praising Zelensky and blasting Trump. In a weird real-politik way Russia taking France might have been more sustainable in the long term than Russia taking over the US. As you pointed out several years ago there is a strain of Russo philia across French society that doesn't exist in America. For the vast majority of American including the majority of Trump supporters over say 35 or even 30 Russia is still the bad guy. I was only born in 1983 so I don't have a lot of memories of the Cold War but even I remember seeing the first Pierce Brosnan era James Bond movie, Goldeneye at the movie theater in 1993 and how in the opening scene it is very evident the Russians or at least the Soviet Russians are the bad guys.
https://youtu.be/dLF3XDHKm9Y?si=TKii4P-11eSoPdfv&t=379
FWIW reviewing the French press headlines from today apparently MLP is now all over the place on the Zelensky vs Trump but my overall impression is everyone in France knows this isn't great territory for the far right at the moment. Even Bardella gets this even if MLP does not. Other far right types like Eric Ciotti seem to be trying to avoid commenting altogether.
Much like what is happening in Canada my guess is right Trump has 80/20 disapproval/approval rating in France. Much of the 20% approval is within the far right but even then, are a lot, RN voters according to previous polling that don't like Trump as well. I have never been naive enough to think the RN couldn't win a French election, but I am pretty sure they are never going to win one on an explicitly pro Trump platform.
Just because the end of the marathon isn't in sight, doesn't mean that the race doesn't have a starting line.
Mitchell, I agree with you; a rules based order based on international law is viable only as long as there’s a sheriff. Americans have concluded that the costs of maintaining the constabulary now outweigh the benefits.
Long time readers of Claire’s Substack know that she’s argued eloquently and somewhat convincingly that the United States accrues remarkable benefits by serving as the world’s policeman. One example is the extraordinary benefit that accrues to the United States from controlling the world’s reserve currency.
The problem is that the war in Ukraine was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Americans have watched for decades the subsidies that flowed from our country to our European allies and to Japan and Korea. The Europeans point with pride to the fact that they’ve given as much or maybe a little bit more to Ukraine than the United States has. Millions of Americans look at this and can’t help but notice that for Europe, Ukraine and Russia are next door neighbors while Americans benefit from the protection afforded by a large ocean. They wonder, shouldn’t the Europeans be spending three or four times more on Ukraine than the United States is?
My guess is that there are very few Americans who would claim that Putin’s Russia shares American values. The problem is that millions of Americans are beginning to wonder if our European allies still share American values. They’re right to wonder whether nations that arrest citizens for silently praying in the vicinity of abortion clinics share American values. They’re also right to wonder whether nations that imprison citizens for tweets the government doesn’t like share American values. Cancelling elections that a disfavored political party is about to win isn’t exactly an American value (even if Democrats and Republicans would love to be able to do the same thing if the circumstances called for it). Welcoming many millions of immigrants who come from nations where pluralism is a foreign concept also makes Americans skeptical.
Europe and the United States are drifting apart. The fault lies almost entirely with the Europeans.
European countries are generally far more conservative on abortion rights than the US. Bring your pregnant mistress here to Austria, Poland or Italy and try and get an abortion. Good luck.
Agree with you that "a rules based order based on international law is viable only as long as there’s a sheriff." But I want to challenge your next, very vague statement: "Americans have concluded that the costs of maintaining the constabulary now outweigh the benefits."
First of all, which Americans? The 49.8% of the electorate that voted for Trump, who represent only about a third of all adult American citizens? [This is how I calculated that figure: 245 million Americans were eligible to vote in the 2024 election. 155 million ballots were cast, so about 36% of the voting-eligible population did not vote, meaning those who voted were 64% of Americans. 49.8% of them gave their vote to Trump. Now we're down to about a third of Americans {https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election}]. I doubt that the third that didn't vote for Trump have concluded that.
Secondly, does the voting-eligible population understand the benefits? A third of them pay no attention to politics, which is why they don't vote. You're telling me these low-information voters know anything about the Pax Americana? I find that hard to believe. As to the benefit to Americans of the Pax Americana, there’s more than controlling the world’s reserve currency. If you think you can’t afford the costs of keeping the peace, wait till you see what it costs without it.
Further, to talk about costs without also citing the benefits is disingenuous and politically motivated. This is what Republicans do. It is so easy to convince Americans they're being ripped off and to demonize others because those dispositions are inherent in many human beings. Any charismatic malignant narcissist can exploit that. We once had a president that called us to our better angels. We now have one that exploits our lesser ones.
Finally, as to the Europeans and how much $$ they put up for their own security, that can all be negotiated without bullying and humiliating them. And it doesn't justify taking Russia's side in their war on Ukraine, or forgetting about their war crimes, the most horrible, IMO, taking Ukrainian children as prisoners of war. Those children have been traumatized and their psyches damaged for the rest of their lives.
Sandy, your remarks about the percent of registered voters who actually go to the polls and the percentage of Americans who bother to register at all or participate in politics applies to most elections. The United States has a chronically low turn out rate. As for how educated the electorate is, that’s a subjective issue. Voters care what they care about. They prioritize what they prioritize. Complain if you want to that they’re not as knowledgeable about certain issues as you wish they were but it’s a futile endeavor that doesn’t change anything.
I don’t think Trump won because voters were too stupid to know any better. If that’s what you think, that’s fine but obviously the voters had a pretty good idea of what his plans were (including the pardons) and they voted for him either because they supported all or most of his plans or, at the very least, they preferred it to the alternative plans offered by Harris.
Do you think a plurality of voters chose Trump because they believed he would maintain the status quo or make small changes around the margins? I don’t. I think that Trump voters were mad as hell and not willing to take it any more.
Trump may not be appealing to the better angels of our nature, but he is doing something that few presidents do: he’s actually keeping his campaign promises. He’s ripping down the rotten timbers of American domestic policy and he’s eviscersting the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that’s led to one failed war after the next that accomplished nothing but wasting trillions of dollars and robbing too many American service members of their arms, legs or even their lives.
Trump has maybe four years to change the world but probably only two. The party out of power usually wins the congressional elections two years into a president’s second term; if it happens (it probably will) it won’t help Trump. As he approaches lame duck status, even Congressional Republicans may look at him more skeptically. It’s just the way American politics works.
Don’t worry; the empire always strikes back. Revolutions are always followed by counterrevolutions. Personally I hope what Claire Berlinski fears. I hope that the changes to our Alliance structure and to American foreign policy are irrevocable. I’m not sure they are. My fingers are crossed.
Thank you for replying but I don’t have to time to respond to this. Even if I didn’t have anything else to do with my time, I’m afraid it would lead to an endless round of discussion with no facts agreed upon which would be an enormous waste of time for me.
Fair enough.
Give it a rest about Europeans "arresting citizen for silently praying in the vicinity of abortion clinics." This was * one* citizen, after which the Home Secretary wrote to every police force in the nation to tell them that that prayer was not a criminal offense; the police apologized to her; and she won a large settlement after suing for wrongful arrest. Don't you ever bother to look up these fairytales you hear from JD Vance? Meanwhile., Trump is posting things like this:
@realDonaldTrump As a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history, quite naturally, here come the Fake books and stories with the so-called “anonymous,” or “off the record,” quotes. At some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general, to find out whether or not these “anonymous sources” even exist, which they largely do not. They are made up, defamatory fiction, and a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty. I’ll do it as a service to our Country. Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!
Meanwhile, he's filing nuisance lawsuits against journalists--and releasing thousands of violent criminals for one reason only: to service as his Freikorps. They have so intimidated the American Congress that we now see report after report indicating that they dare not vote their conscience for fear these people will kill their kids. Don't even try to pretend that Americans would know, no less care, about *any* of the events you believe to be transpiring in Europe absent the incessant, hyperactive efforts of Russian propagandists, working hand in glove with our gullible far-right media, to tell them these lies incessantly. For God's sake: Russia is doing this with the deliberate goal of severing the Transatlantic alliance. Why do you think they're doing that, WigWag? Why do you think breaking up the EU and NATO are the relentless focus of Russian propaganda? Why do you think they're saturating Americans in stories that suggest that Europe "doesn't share Americans' values," and vice-versa? Do you think it's their commitment to journalistic excellence? Do you think it's because they love us so much that they want us to know the truth about our allies? [edited for vulgarity and setting a bad example.]
Actually, the UK citizen that you mentioned, Isabel Vaughn-Spruce was arrested not once for the same offense but twice. She was arrested in Birmingham in 2022 and 2023. Adam Smith-Connor was convicted in 2024 for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic in Bournemouth.
Over 100 British subjects have been arrested for social media posts that the government found objectionable. I’m quite sure that most if not all of these posts were repugnant. It doesn’t matter what the content was. Arresting people for what they say or write is censorship and the censors are always the bad guys. Given it’s druthers, the EU would impose an all-consuming censorship regime. There’s nothing about that desire of the EU that’s congruent with American views of pluralism.
Russian propaganda has nothing to do with Europe’s rejection of freedom, pluralism and democracy. It’s not Russian propaganda that’s the biggest problem, it’s the desperate attempts of hypereducated European elites to silence the voices of ordinary people who those elites believe are too uncouth to be entitled to free expression.
I don’t like everything Trump has done, but nothing he has done comes close to approaching the venality of European elites when it comes to freedom.
As for your comment about the pardons of the January 6th prisoners, Trump was unambiguous during the election campaign that he planned to issue pardons. By voting for him, the majority of Americans indicated either that they were good with the pardons or didn’t care one way or the other.
A politician who keeps his promises. Who could have believed that we would ever see it?
What is hyper-educated? Is that a college degree, a masters or a doctorate?
And as my earlier response to you shows, it was not a majority of Americans who were good with the pardons or didn't care. Only a third.
“Russian propaganda has nothing to do with Europe’s rejection of freedom,”
It is not rejection of freedom. To the contrary, Europe is trying to RETAIN freedom while having to defend itself against "immigration," nascent fascist recrudescence and, well, Russian propaganda. But sure, let's call it "censorship." Your point here is itself Russian propaganda, as is the rest of that paragraph of yours. You know this.
“Arresting people for what they say or write is censorship” No, it is the application of defamation, incitement, privacy, and similar laws limiting free speech. You do know that what people (and also "people") say and write can be easily weaponized, right? Hence laws.
“[T]he censors are always the bad guys.” You're very intelligent, so surely you understand that actual censorship — as opposed to policing — is itself an act of free speech (on the part of the authorities). Any 15-year-old will tell you that “You cannot put limits on liberty without violating its defining principle” — but you're not a kid, so please think this through.
Silent Prayer: As Claire noted, we've been here before and you didn't seem willing to grasp the idea of a Public Space Protection Order then so perhaps a different tack may have better results.
Is the idea of forbidding peaceful protest *really* so un-American? Because the spate of restrictive laws across the US recently suggests otherwise... see a careful collation here: https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/?location=&status=enacted&issue=&date=&type=legislative#
Yes, the U.S. also has laws preventing demonstrations that might inhibit women from entering abortion clinics. The idea is to prevent women or abortion providers from being intimidated. These laws do not prevent American citizens from praying silently (in their own minds) in the vicinity of abortion clinics as long as they don’t prevent women or providers from entering the clinics and as long as they don’t trespass on private property. Law enforcement personnel would be precluded from questioning citizens about whether they are praying. Doing so would violate the First Amendment. The principles established by the First Amendment clearly don’t have resonance in your country.
Several Americans were prosecuted and convicted of demonstrating (not praying silently) in the vicinity of abortion clinics. These cases were brought by the Biden Administration; an Administration that had no more respect for pluralism than Prime Minister Two-Tier. Like Starmer, Biden wished he coukd imprison people for publishing nasty tweets. Sadly for him but happily for Americans, the First Amendment precluded that.
By the way, the Americans convicted of demonstrating illegally in proximity to abortion clinics were all pardoned by Trump. All of this suggests that unlike Biden and Starmer, Trump actually believes in freedom of expression.
In some ways it doesn't matter. Europe is far more important to the US economically than Russia. Moreover Europe is far more important to Russia than the US itself. Trump removing US sanctions on Russia helps Russia a bit especially when trading with the likes of Gulf States but France, Germany, and the UK were all far more important to the Russia economy pre-war the US itself was. Hence I suspect this is a major conflict in the current Trump-Putin negotiations.
Is the objective to give smug globalists their comeuppance or to improve the lives of Americans? If the former, Bravo. If the latter, then look at Argentina since 1900 to see where this is going. It’s not up.
Aditya, I don’t think the goal is to give the globalists their comeuppance, it’s merely a gratifying side-effect. Michael Schellenberger, in his Substack makes an interesting point when he says,
“We go to Europe, where they have universal healthcare, work 35 hours a week, and retire at a young age and ask ourselves: why can’t we have this? Why are we paying for this for others and not ourselves? Europe enjoys a high quality of life in large part because we pay for all or a large part of its security. And in return, we get disrespect and entitlement.”
Since at least the Administration of George H.W. Bush, the Europeans have been warned that Americans were sick and tired of their free riding. European leaders ignored those warnings until finally, at long last, it was too late.
I disagree with Trump when he accuses Zelensky of starting the war; that accusation is ridiculous. The two men who started this war were Vladamir Putin and Joe Biden. Putin never believed that Ukraine was a real country and he pined for the glory days of the Soviet Union. Joe Biden, after defeating Trump, pined to show the world that post-Trump, “America was back.” He thought a war between Ukraine and Russia was, on balance, positive for the United States because it would cut Russian capabilities down a notch or two and maybe even result in Putin’s downfall. That’s why Biden did everything he could (including refusing to take Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table) to goad Putin into invading. A war between Ukraine and Russia was the proxy war of Biden’s fondest dreams. Biden got his war; Putin was only too happy to oblige.
As you will remember, at the war’s inception, Erdogan, Macron and Naftali Bennett all offered to mediate. Biden nixed all of those efforts. Why do you think he did that? In the end, Putin’s and Biden’s nostalgia for the Cold War was fulfilled and the poor Ukrainians paid the price.
My hope is that this final catastrophe kills the globalist neoconservative agenda once and for all. For the United States that agenda has been disastrous. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States lost twice in Iraq. We were ignobly defeated by the rag-tag Taliban and now, the impending disaster in Ukraine may turn out to be the biggest defeat of all. Is it any wonder that so many Americans want neoconservatism dead and buried?
After the blow-up in the Oval Office, it was fascinating watching so many European nations offering words of support for Ukraine. The problem is that Europe has little to offer other than words. Yes, they’ve been generous to Ukraine but the European nations are running out of military stockpiles to send and their economic incompetence means they are also running out of money to send.
Despite their economic challenges, the European nations are some of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Two European nations possess nuclear weapons (assuming they’ve been maintained and could still explode). If Europe is so enamored of Ukraine, it’s time for Europe to put its money where its mouth is. If that requires dipping into the funds it needs for its social safety net, that’s too bad. That’s what the United States has been doing for decades.
„We go to Europe, where they have universal healthcare, work 35 hours a week, and retire at a young age and ask ourselves: why can’t we have this“
It’s not because the US is paying for Europe. It’s because Europeans pay higher taxes than Americans do. Is Schellenberger really that stupid or is he just playing the usual GOP game of distracting the masses with shiny baubles so they don’t come after the rich with pitchforks?
Nah, no need to dip into anything. Just use the $300 billion Russia has parked there, and Ukraine wins. But they won't do that. Why do you think that is?
Well one reason is that if the United States or Europe starts confiscating Russian reserves in Western banking institutions it risks jeopardizing the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Countries will naturally be reluctant to hold American dollars in American or European banks if they believe those reserves are subject to confiscation. That’s the most important reason that Biden and the European leaders didn’t do it despite their strong inclination to do so. Why do you think they refused to confiscate the Russian funds?
Of course with Trump in power confiscation of Russian assets is off the table.
It's simple. Refrain from genocidal invasions of convenience, and no one will touch your reserves. Put that right in the contract, if you like.
But consider: countries are already raiding Russian reserves for Ukraine -- just the interest, not the principal. That's a distinction without a difference. It's Russia's money either way; so why not take the whole thing?
My theory is that the interest is just a trickle which can't change anything decisively. The whole base $300+ billion would result in Ukraine winning militarily in short order. And that's the problem. Victory for Ukraine is fine, bring it on. But it would mean defeat for Russia by definition, and the west does not want to see Russia suffer a loss in this way. That's also why we don't have meaningful sanctions against Russia even now and don't supply weapons in decent amounts.
In short, the war there is not mainly about Ukraine, but pretty much entirely about Russia. If Russia collapses, then so does a lot of other stuff. Like, a LOT. So Russia must not lose. That's all.
George, your comment here reminds me of a remark once made by Oscar Wilde. “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants and the other is getting it.”
You might be right. Perhaps the Western powers want Russia defeated but they are so afraid of the consequences of a Russian defeat that they refused to do what they needed to do to insure a Russian defeat.
That could also apply to Biden’s unwillingness to confiscate the Russian assets and provide those assets to Ukraine. Maybe he badly wanted to do it but he was too afraid of the consequences.
Of course, it’s all academic now. Trump will not be confiscating Russia’s reserves and its doubtful that much more American aid will flow to Ukraine. Europe has limited military stocks it can send and its finances inhibit its ability to send sufficient amounts of money to sustain Ukraine in the long run.
All of this means that at best, Ukraine will have to accept an armistice with unattractive terms or it will be utterly defeated.
So much of this was predictable at the beginning of the war. Sadly the bipartisan neocon consensus wanted this war in the worst way. Putin was happy to oblige. Chalk it up as just one more in a long line of catastrophies gestated by globalist neocons. These neocons have the reverse Midas Touch. Everything they lay their hands on turns into you know what.
A useful warning not to go near Mr Schellenberger's substack if that's the quality of his argument.
It is of course reasonable to ask whether the burden of defence spending in NATO is fair, whether the US getting a good return on its existing defence commitments, should other powers be paying more (my answers are roughly no, yes, and yes); but that's a separate question from sovereign states' differing policy priorities on social safety nets.
Very roughly the US spends $900bn a year on defence, and Europe (not just EU) has a GDP of around $30tn. I can't be certain how much US expenditure is focused on Europe; surely less than 1/2. If it were 1/3, that would be $300bn or about 1% of Europe's GDP and 2% of total government spending. That's a decent chunk of state budgets but *nothing like as much as spent on social provisions* - in the UK health and pension provision cost about ten times the defence budget; most european countries spend relatively more. Universal healthcare ain't going away even if defence spending doubles, as I expect it will.
Bottom line: You can have this! *Of course* the US can afford universal healthcare (on most models, it would be cheaper overall than the current system, as in the tax uplift would be less than average current premiums), or European levels of pension-cover, if that's what people vote for. But they don't. This has almost zero connection to defence spending implied by an NATO commitment to European defence, and everything to do with views about the overall level of taxation and what government should be in the business of providing for citizens.
Or is Mr Schellenberger saying he'd be happy to keep defending Europe, as long as they dismantle their social healthcare systems and cut workers holiday entitlements, with no impact whatever on US spending of any kind? Bizarre.
“It is of course reasonable to ask whether the burden of defence spending in NATO is fair, whether the US getting a good return on its existing defence commitments, should other powers be paying more (my answers are roughly no, yes, and yes); but that's a separate question from sovereign states' differing policy priorities on social safety nets.” (Tom Flemming)
I agree.
That’s absolutely true. It’s also absolutely true that Europe should be the primary defender of Ukraine if it wants Ukraine defended.
My question was how the meeting helped Americans. It may well be that it gave Europe the jolt it needed to stand on its own two feet, and allow US government resources to be used elsewhere.
It may also be another signal, along with tariffs, that the priorities of the American people is much more inward looking, seeking a cult of personality government.
Argentina is an example of a wealthy country that was plunged into middle income status by moving in those directions. Argentina isn’t terrible and becoming like that may be just fine with Americans.
"Danish grocery chain to distinguish European from US goods"
This is dated 02/27 - no idea how big that supermarket chain is but not boycotting only labelling seems smart to me quite in line w Trudeau's speech after which his party became a player again
A Gulliver Liliputians appeoach ?
https://p.dw.com/p/4r9Yu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion in The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you."[20] In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."
Very interesting Map - explains a lot why Trump needs Zelensky out of the way so he can get the big grab money deal w Putin into dry towels (German transl mine) - right now I see only German text - will keep looking - my suspicion: lots & lots of those deals will find their way into dishonest pockets.
https://www.dw.com/de/ukraine-sorge-wegen-putins-rohstoff-angebot-an-trump/a-71772889
I’m not sure Vance is a sidekick. He seems more like the ring leader/puppet master. Trump seems to me cognitively manipulated by whoever the last person he talks to. Macron and Starmer did a number on him to the point that he had genuinely forgotten he had called Zelensky a dictator. But this time vance got himself involved and took over the meeting and guided it to where he wanted to go. He’s not to me a syncophant or a sidekick anymore - he is the puppet master. I don’t think we are better off if trump goes and Vance is president. After yesterday I half expect Vance to article 25 the man himself at some point in the future. In so many frustrating ways Vance is the opposite type of VP that Harris was. And in so many ways exactly the VP that Harris needed to be - taking control in light of a cognitively dysfunctional president, and proving the ability to do the job And no, Starmer will not be able to manipulate vance the same way he was able to manipulate Trump. there is no manipulating Vance.
My impression is that Vance is indifferently educated, reactive, and poor at thinking on his feet. (Like Harris, though not as bad.) This makes him unfit to run a construction company, much less the world's most complicated country.
From the complete breakdown of rules in Austrian parliament as witnessed and described by Mark Twain to the start of WW1 it took 14 years. I wish I knew when that clock started now. Yesterday or earlier? Born in a WW2 I very much want to not die in one
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Stirring_Times_in_Austria
The United States is on the way to becoming a rogue state, if it is not there already. One of the mistakes those observing the understood rules of the evolved international order can make is to seek to negotiate with states like Russia, that use and abuse the rules cynically. Such is now the US. The deliberate flouting of norms and the mistreatment of those seeking negotiated solutions is needs concerted resistance throughput the international community. Donald Trump has made it difficult if not impossible to remove him from domestic pressure, and appears to be consolidating his power, to rule as a dictator in whatever means he can manage. As he continues to wreak havoc internationally not only with Ukraine but far more widely, the resolve of those who regard themselves as America's friends is going to be needed. As you say, Claire, Trump is a traitor and needs removal. Only international pressure will create the domestic potential.