19 ms·
US policy is now one of forcing the world into a zero sum game and it is a shame because the world isn't zero sum. This means the world will loose the gains fro
by jmward01 2y ago
US policy is now one of forcing the world into a zero sum game and it is a shame because the world isn't zero sum. This means the world will loose the gains from friendship and cooperation that increase the overall outcome for everyone. It is like living in a city where crime is expected so everyone puts up iron bars on their windows and the parks are all locked-down nightmares. When there is trust and cooperation you can have nice things like open parks and friendly establishments but when trust and cooperation go away you get bars on windows. This is a shame. I am ashamed of the US. I am ashamed that we are so shortsighted and scared that we have to play the bully and force a minmax solution when things could be so much better for everyone.
- rdedev 2y agoNot just the US but a lot of right wing or authoritarian govt in general. The problem with this zero sum thinking is there is another player outside of the countries if the world; nature itself. Think natural disasters, climate change, diseases. No one can negotiate with it or form alliances. It does not care about our survival. The only choice we have is to come together to make sure we don't get screwed over.
- cmrdporcupine 2y agoOr... here's another strategy collect as much money as you can for yourself, and maybe your family... making hay while the sun shines... drilling and selling oil and gas... Demolish sanctions, play the stock market, kill off carbon taxes and environmental measures... Sprinkle a little cryptocurrency backed money laundering here... some tax cuts there... Make sure your closest friends are well taken care of... Then hole up in armed compounds with plenty of fresh water and air conditioning ... and say "f you" to everyone else. Now you understand the rationale of America's new ruling class.
- wombatpm 2y agoThose same people could hold up in a compound today. But they like the nice things, restaurants, social events, football games etc. They better start liking the locked down life now, because if things go bad their 20 security detail won’t protect them later.
- masklinn 2y ago> Those same people could hold up in a compound today. If they did that, you'd be outside being happy or something happy-adjacent. > if things go bad their 20 security detail won’t protect them later. That's... very optimistic, to say the least. Historically it's not been the case.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago20 armed men vs. their beach houses sinking into the ocean, forest fires burning heir land, hurricanes throwing everything every which way, and potentially nuclear hellfire... IDK, I'm betting on Nature (and man's folly wielding nature) on this round.
- masklinn 2y agoWhich is why they build massive compounds both onshore and on various islands, and acquire the means to move between them unimpeded. I don’t know if they’ve considered all the logistics but they do rather seem to be at the point where society’s ability to either ignore or impede them is to be done away with.
- 15155 2y ago> means to move between them unimpeded Which means are these?
- blibble 2y ago> That's... very optimistic, to say the least. Historically it's not been the case. if things go bad, what is the dork zuckerberg going to pay his burly security force in? facebook stock? dollars? not exactly useful
- masklinn 2y ago> if things go bad, what is the dork zuckerberg going to pay his burly security force in? Same as every other autocrat: food, housing, not getting shot yourself. > not exactly useful And yet it usually works.
- Qwertious 2y agoBillionaire bunkers are just billionaire tombs - the only reason billionaires are in charge is the very society they plan to hide from in their bunkers. They have plans for bomb collars, but someone has to maintain them and they could deactivate them, and if your bodyguards want you dead then you're dead.
- cmrdporcupine 2y agoIt doesn't have to be literal bunkers. Just look at the structure of your average "third world" city -- glass towers and luxury condos ringed by miles of shanty towns and slums -- and then a barrier and villas and luxury estates out in the countryside. This is, in fact, how the end of the western Roman empire looked. No bang, just a long series of whimpers as the elite retreated to armed estates with private armies, taxes stopped being collected, overall trade declined, cities declined, and the agrarian peasantry became bound to lords and estates out of need of protection, etc. etc. When civic institutions and the taxes that support them are openly attacked and predated upon, weakened and then combined with environmental, disease, or security crisis, one needn't think hard to picture the kind of eventual world that results.
- aparticulate 2y agoCome together as what? What does this Beatles-era sentiment entail specifically?
- aeternum 2y agoI really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue. The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.
- coffeemug 2y agoIt isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.
- pdpi 2y ago> Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter. Realpolitik is, first and foremost, about (arguably ruthless) pragmatism. What's going on — the US antagonising all its allies and forging new alliances with unreliable partners —— is not pragmatic in the least.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- earthnail 2y agoThe US is undermining the very institutions it built, like the UN, and the rule based world order. That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world. The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.
- AlecSchueler 2y agoThe behaviour makes them at best a laughing stock but at worst a liability. Who wants to keep their money in the US anymore? Trump could announce next week he's freezing all European assets to fund his annexation Greenland.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gdubs 2y agoIt's basically the Back to the Future II world / timeline, which makes sense when you consider who Biff was based on.
- a2dam 2y agoAn interesting fact about that timeline is that the writers based it partially on what they thought the world would be like if Trump was president.
- froh 2y agooh wow. ist that documented somewhere?
- ttyprintk 2y agoLook for Bob Gale, the writer, in Variety magazine.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y agohttps://www.thedailybeast.com/back-to-the-future-writer-biff-tannen-is-based-on-donald-trump/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/back-to-the-future-writer-biff...
- ninjin 2y agoI had to try to find a source for Trump being inspiration for Biff as it just sounded "too good" to be true and apparently it has been stated by screenwriter Bob Gale who wrote it together with director Robert Zemeckis: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-fut...
- lazide 2y agoTrump has always been a caricature of the rich asshole. They even made fun of him in a Robocop movie, if I remember correctly.
- dh2022 2y agoMaritime power vs continental power [0]. Trump sees the world from a continental power viewpoint. In the recent past the West used to see, and operate, the world from maritime power point of view. Incidentally, China used to think like a maritime power as well - until Xi became president. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8mCThmsGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8mCThmsGc
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> Incidentally, China used to think like a maritime power as well - until Xi became president. Historically, China is probably the single least ocean-focused country of any country to have a coast.
- krn1p4n1c 2y agoWhat about their vast fishing and shipping fleets?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dh2022 2y agoChina trades with almost every country in the world-that is maritime power. Since Xi became president China is acting more like a continental power-looking at land expansion at the cost of trade. Granted China did not attack Taiwan yet. Hopefully Xi sees this folly and does not attack Taiwan.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> China trades with almost every country in the world-that is maritime power. No, that has absolutely nothing to do with "maritime power".
- DeathArrow 2y agoHow do they ship goods worldwide?
- bbminner 2y agoNot everyone benefits from cooperation. Feuds are a great "business opportunity" - while everyone's divided and at each other's throat, you can take them out (or extort/bully) one by one, without any consequences, especially if you have the biggest and scariest stick in the block. So, solidarity, cooperation, and people sticking up for each other are absolutely awful for thugs and bullies.
- whatshisface 2y agoThe US already had all the power when people called it the leader of the free world, when people start using the word "bully," that signifies a major shift.
- tmountain 2y agoIt will result in a loss of power. Isolation is not a strengthening posture. You need allies to succeed over the long term. This looks like the beginning of the downfall of the United States from every measure.
- ioblomov 2y agoI don't disagree. But then for most of the 7,000 years of recorded history, GDP (and all the might that wealth ensures) was strictly a function of population. It wasn't until European colonialism came in the 1400s and industrialization in the 1700s that guns, resource extraction, and productivity gains changed the game. But WW2 ended colonialism and 90s globalization spread industrialization worldwide, leaving us all in the slow roll of reverting to the mean now. At the end of which, the ancient civilizations of China and India, with nearly 3 billion people between them, will return to global dominance.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- Arkhadia 2y ago[flagged]
- ttoinou 2y ago[flagged]
- plasmatix 2y agoFamously friendly and cooperative Donald Trump?
- userbinator 2y agoHe's only friendly to those he wants to persuade.
- fourside 2y agoThat may be the narrative that the GOP has sold to the right, but it’s simply not true. Crime is down from what it was decades ago. The US is far from perfect but it’s not the crime ridden hellhole that the right portrays it to be. I’m also not sure how you think the Trump administration’s actions are addressing this. He pardoned Jan 6th rioters. He’s defunding federal infrastructure. This is just so blatantly disconnected from what’s happening.
- up2isomorphism 2y ago[flagged]
- anon7725 2y agoIt pays a fair bit in direct costs, it gets multiples back in return by being at the center of many systems.
- henrikschroder 2y agoThe EU contributes and has contributed quite a lot more than the US has to Ukraine. In addition, most US contributions are done in the form of donating surplus/outdated military equipment that was manufactured by the US defence industry decades ago, at a fictional list price. And yet, way too many Americans seem to think that each billion-dollar contribution the US has done to Ukraine consisted of someone taking that money out of the US treasury now and giving it to Zelensky as a sack of cash or something. No, the money left the US treasury many years ago, and went to US defence industry. The aid bills also typically contain an agreement for future spending on US defence industry to replace the donated equipment. In each case, the tax money went to US companies in the MIC, and it is quite something to see how so many people on the right wing now thinks this is a bad thing.
- up2isomorphism 2y agoSomeone still needs to pay for it, no matter it is outdated or not. You want it for free, NO, USA people think otherwise.
- 29athrowaway 2y agoTerritorial disputes, when the negotiation terms involve only territorial changes is a zero-sum game. It stops being a zero-sum game once you add more terms. A good example of an effective peace treaty was the Camp David accords that put an end to the Yom Kippur war of 1973. That used interest based bargaining instead of distributive bargaining. The outcome that Russia is interested in this conflict is: - annexing territory (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc) - help Ukraine facilitate the international recognition of that annexation - Ukraine should not join NATO (this makes another invasion viable in the future) In this deal, Ukraine gets: - a ceasefire - some peacekeeping help These terms are pretty mediocre for Ukraine. This administration seems to be inclined to think that's the best Ukraine can get and they should take the offer to prevent further losses. Oblasts like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc. have a high percentage of ethnic Russians living there. That would remain a barrier for Ukraine to achieve peace even if Russians retreat to pre-2014 borders. Nobody knows exactly what percentage of Russians live there because the last census was long time ago.
- whatshisface 2y agoThat would not be a barrier for peace in Ukraine. The war is not between Russians and Ukrainians, but Russia and Ukraine - in fact, that area voted for Zelenskyy. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election#/media/File:2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election,_round_2_by_polling_station.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoReportedly they voted for him, because he was an actor who played good guys, so people expected him to stay away from big politics.
- dagenleg 2y agoNo, where are you getting this from? His value proposal was that he was a) an outsider in politics, b) russian speaking ukranian. He was elected on on the platform of reducing corruption and negotiating the end to the Donbas conflict.
- hyuh56 2y ago[flagged]
- standeven 2y agoUkraine wants peace with a security guarantee. US wants ceasefire with no guarantee, allowing Russia to recoup and reinvade in a year or two.
- namaria 2y agoNo. The US wants Ukraine to capitulate. If you read some history and learn what happens when a country capitulates to Russia you'd realize that's much, much worse than resisting.
- prox 2y agoJust imagine for a second that your country is being invaded. Just imagine your friends and family are being killed by an invasion. That your whole culture is under threat. Just look at what Russia does with places they invaded and culturally assimilated. Everything you love might be gone if you capitulate. It’s not that Ukraine doesn’t want peace, but on fair terms, not by giving Russia everything they want. Not by ignoring the sacrifices. Please read up more on the history of the region and what led up to this war. A good source is : https://inss.ndu.edu/Publications/View-Publications/Article/3010403/russias-war-in-ukraine-identity-history-and-conflict/ https://inss.ndu.edu/Publications/View-Publications/Article/...
- hyuh56 2y agoMy country was invaded many times. We have lost some chunk of land which we can't get back unless there is all out war with countless life lost. We are third world country we don't have backing of US to continue a prolonged war.
- donmcronald 2y agoAnd the US thinks that’s ok. They want Ukraine to give up the territory Russia took by force. Everyone else wants Russia to respect the agreed upon borders.
- ttoinou 2y agoSome games are indeed zero sum, some are positive and some are negative. You could also see that in a positive light : Europeans might get a better armies / defence in 10 years compared to if the USA continued its past behavior without Trump
- Marazan 2y agoThe world and human society is not zero sum. The Mercantilist world view is empirically wrong.
- muzani 2y agoLarger armies are negative sum for everyone. Historically, per capita GDP was flat until the 18th century, because wealth was measured in gold and people thought the best way to be rich was to keep robbing and colonizing one another.
- safety1st 2y agoHere is a more nuanced take imho: * After decades of reckless spending and lax economic management the US is going broke in a number of ways. In particular dealing with the national debt before and after Covid are very different beasts * Coupled with similar problems in other countries and gradual global demographic decline, the global future looks like a zero sum game * In its relations with other states, America has tended to leave a lot of money on the table since the Cold War era, in order to curry political favor, which it can no longer afford to do * Republicans speak and campaign more openly about this than Democrats even though they both agree on the fundamental ideas I just outlined * This is why Republicans are currently ascendant with the electorate and Democrats are seeing some of their worst numbers ever in favorability polls * It is eminently reasonable to not prefer zero sum geopolitical games because they tend to cause poverty and war, but we've boxed ourselves into this future through decades of poor decisions
- tempestn 2y agoI don't agree with your conclusions, but I feel you're arguing in good faith and therefore don't deserve down votes. I'm not sure America actually has left a lot of money on the table. I see America having benefitted a lot from the post cold war world order (as indeed have most of its allies), and my take is that the kind of extraction of value that Trump has been attempting is at very best only beneficial in the short term. But again, I appreciate when people with different viewpoints can discuss them civilly, so I gave you an upvote.
- Propelloni 2y agoMe too.
- zmgsabst 2y agoAmerican working and middle classes have been devastated over the course of forty years by bad trade deals. They’re the constituency that supports Trump. Numbers like GDP or total wealth will be highly misleading — and it’s unsurprising that the opinion of the petite bourgeoisie (who primarily make up HN) differ from those groups.
- namaria 2y ago> It is like living in a city where crime is expected so everyone puts up iron bars on their windows and the parks are all locked-down nightmares. That's life in Brazilian big cities. Brazil has been very violent for a long time because the government enforces a zero-sum game against the population. The poor half of the population is overwhelmingly colored people and the richer white half would rather burn it all down than share it better. Brazil is one of the most unequal societies on the planet. If we go that direction globally, security will erode everywhere. Trust me, we don't want that. You don't want every metropolis to become like a big Brazilian city. Go find some Brazilian media website and read the news. It's pretty grim. It's what society is like with persistent high inequality, a forced zero-sum game to preserve status quo and the resulting general insecurity.
- barrenko 2y agoYou can find the same thing (well, similar) in San Francisco, Oslo, Antwerpen. It's plain refusal to police and hold up societal values.
- namaria 2y agoThat is a simplistic assumption. These cities you mentioned have nowhere near the same problem that Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, for example, have. Brazilian police do overwhelming policing against poor communities and the resulting brutalization only compounds the problem.
- somenameforme 2y agoEl Salvador is strong evidence that the issue is a lack of enforcement. It hasn't been well covered in the mainstream media because it goes against the typical narrative. Their homicide rate in 2016 was 107 - one of the highest in the world and several times that of Brazil. As of 2024 it's 1.9, a fraction of even the US' rate. [1] The solution? Round up obvious gang members, who conveniently like to mark it all over their body, throw them in prison, throw away the key. If they get violent in the process then don't even bother with the whole prison thing. Were the people just terrified about this horrible abuse of power? No, their Supreme Court made an exception to allow him to run for another term and he won with 80%+ of the vote, his party gaining a super majority, and El Salvador is rapidly going from one of the most dangerous places on Earth to a very safe one. "First they came for the gang members... and then life was pretty great and everybody lived happily ever after." BTW similar sorts of crackdowns have also happened in numerous places including Thailand and the Philippines (in both cases over drugs), with similarly resoundingly positive results. Enforcement works. [1] - https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-homicides-gangs-bukele-69384a8705267eaddd18dcd28a53465b https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-homicides-gangs-bukel...
- remarkEon 2y agoWe need to level-set the reality here. The lines on the map in the Ukraine war do not change in Ukraine's favor unless one or both of the following happen: 1) The United States gets directly involved, and/or 2) strategic weapons are used. The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think everyone realizes this, and I think the recent election results in multiple countries there make this point. You are complaining, I think, about the style here. An argument in the Oval Office. Well, the United States is the main reason that Russia, after its disastrous and frankly juvenile attempt at an invasion, hasn't been able to gain additional territory after the war went into the defensive. Let me repeat that: The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. And as a result of this fact, The United States is the one that gets to dictate terms.
- whatshisface 2y agoOK, if we can dictate terms, let's tell both sides to be at peace... and while we're at it, Russia should join NATO, and let's get a side of Freedom Fries. ;-)
- remarkEon 2y agoI understand that you are joking, but part of the problem with how people talk about this issue is that they are either not serious (you) or are imagining that this conflict is similar to things they have seen in a Marvel comic book movie (most of the rest of this thread).
- balamatom 2y agoI feel like that's how most people talk about most issues these days. I blame the comic book movies. Alongside a host of other innocuous looking factors that add up to the total disempowerment of the individual. The hell can any of us do, other than...?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- gitaarik 2y ago[flagged]
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoas I understand it the discussion of adding Ukraine to Nato happened after Russian aggression.
- gitaarik 2y agoYeah but the other countries were already added, so the pressure for Russia was building up. So I don't understand why it would be an unexpected action of Russia.
- echoangle 2y agoThe problem isn’t that it’s unexpected. It’s still unjustified. China taking over Taiwan wouldn’t be very surprising either, does that make it ok?
- gitaarik 2y agoYeah but we could have prevented it, so that means we wanted to so badly expand NATO that we would go into war with Russia for it? Why can't we stay put and maybe try to talk more? And now that we have an opportunity to talk or make a deal, and we blow it off as being in bed with Putin?
- echoangle 2y agoBecause we don’t want to be told who to voluntarily take into our alliance by an opponent? Are you going to give china everything they ask for next because they take Taiwan if you don’t?
- gitaarik 2y agoBut NATO first agreed not to expand to countries along Russia's border, because they see that as a threat. But then NATO did anyway. So it's not like we're being told by Russia what to do, we made an agreement. And Russia is also a superpower, and we don't want to be in conflict with them. So yeah it's not that everything they say we should abide to, but we should also not think that we can do everything without upsetting them.
- galfarragem 2y ago[flagged]
- Timwi 2y agoThis is the closest I've seen to hate speech without being outright hate speech.
- zith 2y agoOf course, majority is not very cleanly applicable yous politics. Less than half (which according to Mirriam Webster is the definition) of the votes cast in the last election went to Trump/Vance, and with such a poor voter turnout it was even further from a majority. Meanwhile the electoral college is working against the idea.
- ben_w 2y agoSure. Majority of who, exactly? Where is the boundary of the dēmos from whence the word "democracy" comes? Is it even constant for all things, or should powers of self derermination shift as group sizes change: what power should the people of California and New York have to tell the people of Texas that there are decisions they cannot make? What power should the USA have to tell Russia or Ukraine what to do? Because the US is a minority of the world. So is the EU. So is China, despite being larger than both combined. Half the world lives within 3300 km of Mong Khet, Myanmar; should they determine all world rules down to planning permission, or just global matters such as mandatory climate change reaponses and enforcing global treaties?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle
- galfarragem 2y agoMinorities have the right to make/propose all the rules they want. What I mean is that majorities can’t be forced to comply. That wouldn’t be a democracy. By the way, minorities and majorities are fractal.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
- ioblomov 2y agoLet's not confuse domains: while economics isn't (necessarily) zero sum, geopolitics (in terms of influence or territory) is. US policy has nothing to do with these two facts.
- misja111 2y agoYes, when you look purely at geopolitics in terms of influence or territory, then that's zero sum. But even when leaving economics out of the equation, which I find questionable, there are plenty of other aspects of politics that are not zero sum. For instance: climate politics, pandemic control, arms race prevention.
- ioblomov 2y agoI don't disagree, but they all unfortunately take a backseat to geopolitics. When it comes to the behavior of nations, the playground politics of bully and victim has more explanatory power than all the high talk of the UN.
- misja111 2y agoBut is that really true? I wasn't talking specifically about the UN, but if you take a look at nations across the globe, also historically, is the behaviour of nations primarily ruled by zero-sum bully and victim politics, or by nash equilibria, i.e. compromises where both parties benefit? I would say that nations that are at war or threatening each other with war are in the minority, globally.
- ioblomov 2y agoHmmm, you raise an interesting question. I'm no game theorist, but are bully/victim dynamics and Nash equilibria necessarily mutually exclusive? What I'm getting at is: the threat of force determines every other player's optimal strategy, with a fight always being the last resort for everyone involved. Under such conditions, Adam giving the bully his lunch money, Bob his homework, and Charlie his lunch may be the Nash equilbrium—that is, until Dave (who knows kung fu) moves to the neighborhood.
- omnee 2y agoThe world, including the US, will be poorer and less safe if the US moves to zero sum geopolitics and mercantilism of 19th century. And the losses will be burdened on everyone else other than the very rich elites. Indeed, even a short review of America's own history would be proof of this.
- idle_zealot 2y agoEven the rich will be worse off. Just relatively less so. It's utterly irrational, but that's what happens when a population feels disillusioned with the status quo, and capital does all it can to push that unrest in any direction but reducing wealth inequality. Turns out the next easiest outlet is to appeal to humanity's worst tendencies, resulting in the rise of fascism. This will play out over and over in liberal democracies so long as they abide a large wealth gap. It's anyone's guess whether we'll figure that out before there are no democratic states left.
- omnee 2y agoThe status quo in western countries of giving absolute primacy to the needs/demands of capital above all else has indeed failed. The share of national income going to the middle and working classses makes this obvious. Yet, this is not being resolved. Instead, the very same groups that have benefitted from the status quo have managed to acquire power on the back of a disaffected populous, and they hold a fundamental belief that multi-lateral institutions/geopolitics do not act in the US's (or their) economic interest.
- _heimdall 2y agoHow did we actually escape the zero sum game that is economics? Oil, lumber, plastics, steel, human labor, electricity, etc are all still finite resources. It seems like we've been playing in a much larger zero sum game, and that allowed us to gain temporarily profit from that much larger game. We can't escape it though, only finite resources have economic value.
- pasc1878 2y ago
- jeswin 2y ago> I am ashamed of the US. Don't be. I'm neither American nor European, and from my vantage point this is far less America's (US) fault than it is Western Europe's. US has been asking Europe to increase defense spending for years now, and at the beginning of the war it was below 2% (Germany was spending 1.25% in 2018). Trump said this very publicly in during his first term, and he was ignored and mostly ridiculed. Same thing with the Gazprom deal. Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer.
- herghost 2y ago> Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer True. However. The US has wanted to play a major role in Europe for 80 years because it meant they controlled the narrative. This, co-incidentally was favourable to European countries because they could spend their money elsewhere. Over the past few years the US has decided that it would prefer to play in the Pacific rather than Europe and so has been edging away. It's true that Western Europe has been slow to respond, but it's also important to acknowledge that Trump just changed the pace of this redirection and so it's not entirely on one or the other side.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoYou fell for the propaganda. The US is not spending for Ukraine the way Trump is trying to make it seem. Sending old equipment that is expensive to dispose of helps the US two-fold. And yes, fighting indirectly with Russia is also helping the US two-fold. Or, was until Trump decided to wake up as a sleeper agent .
- naasking 2y ago> ending old equipment that is expensive to dispose of helps the US two-fold. You fell for this propaganda. That equipment is "old" doesn't mean it isn't actively being used. The US military uses and maintains old equipment where it still makes sense, and where there is no viable replacement.
- jeswin 2y agoI have made the same argument long before Trump was in the picture. Stop associating everything with Trump or propaganda - people can hold opinions which don't agree with yours.
- belter 2y agoTwo critical items who give away the total compromise of the administration. During the conference Trump was asked when did he talk to Putin last time and said "a couple of days ago". No official communication was made about that. I am not referring to the initial call mentioned a few weeks ago. A TASS reporter got into the Oval Office, and was kicked out when this was flagged by other members of the press. The normal accredited journalists can't easily get into the Oval Office, there is a much more rigorous process for that. Somebody from the current US Administration, wanted this prearranged ambush, to be broadcast live to Russian audiences.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 2y agoThe U.S. pulling back from policing the world is good for everyone except the europeans who were free-riding on the american military budget. How many deaths and trillions of dollars of waste resulted from liberal internationalism in the 20th and early 21st century? Vietnam, Korea, Iraq? The Iraq War should have discredited the whole project and resulted in throwing the “promoting democracy” folks into gulags. But they regrouped masterfully.
- shipscode 2y ago[flagged]
- defterGoose 2y agoTotally a mischaracterization. On one hand an imperfect crisis response, on the other hand, a brazen, unforced error.
- svara 2y agoYes, exactly, and that's the one huge issue with overt Machiavellianism as a strategy. The big question I've been asking myself for a while now is, why isn't that plainly obvious to everyone in the US? Why isn't it plainly obvious to Trump himself and to his fans? I think the reason is American Exceptionalism, and the cultural power it has in the US. If you start from the premise that you play in a completely different league than everyone else, there isn't much to gain from building cooperative structures. Interestingly, I remember even Peter Thiel saying in a podcast I listened to many years ago that he thought American Exceptionalism was the biggest cultural weakness in the US.
- perrygeo 2y agoThe world _wasn't_ zero sum when we had limitless economic growth. But growth has effectively ended for the majority of people. And resource constraints look they will define the future. Extracting resources has always been the central tenant of industrial society, and there was always somewhere new to pillage. With literally nowhere on earth left to expand this global juggernaut, it's not clear that our zero sum utopia can continue. I'm not defending Trump's actions by any means; spitting in the face of your friends is the last thing you want to do when times are lean. But at least this administration sees the writing on the wall: business as usual is dead and we're entering an era of zero sum contraction. Their response is insane but at least they acknowledge the problem (unlike traditional liberals and conservatives who think we can keep tweaking the current system forever)
- sethammons 2y agoYou realized all the markets have (until very recently) been going up, all the economic indicators showing green, and business was booming. My portfolio was up. That economic activity is growth. It was still happening. Just the middle class didn't participate like it used to like in the 50s. Because the marginal tax rate back then kept as much wealth from pooling at the top. Economic inequality is the problem, not lack of growth.
- yyyk 2y agoThe reality of the matter is that world was going that way anyway, as a result of weakness and mistakes past admins couldn't remedy (including Trump's). The Russian army is IMHO not anywhere near collapse, it's suffering many casualties in a useless war (for Russia), but ultimately they have x4 people and industrial advantage (!). Trump is being very crass, but any US admin would seek to close this up since simply put Ukr is losing - yet Putin cannot take Kyiv either. What's left is everyone wasting a lot of blood for a some land in Donbass. The pressure is applied too much on Ukraine though - Putin needs to made to climb down a bit, which is difficult given his advances but maybe doable (I think a threat of unilateral EU forces deployment could do it).
- mark_l_watson 2y agoI have a different take on this situation: I have felt for about a decade that it was time for my country (USA) to slowly ease away from being the sole dominate super power and figure out how to live in a multi-polar world. I am not a fan of President Trump but I wish him good luck in moving us in the direction of coexisting with Russia and China because I think it is in the best interests of most people in most countries. I was disappointed by Zelensky yesterday and I don’t believe he acted in the best interests of his people. I like Ukraine, wonderful country to visit and nice friendly people. I would like to visit again when the war has ended.