This “However, almost immediately after Trump cuts intelligence sharing, the Russians launch a massive missile barrage.”, seems like an act of war, by the USA. How else can it be interpreted in reality?
Switching sides in the middle of a war is an act of treachery. What is now the position of British and European forces? Will not actions in support of Ukraine be deemed as hostile to the US military?
I think it is fair to identify the Republican President as a traitor to the United States. It is unbelievable that a President of the United States would throw the wealth and power of the country on the side of an autocrat. The President has apparently decided that supporting a fascist dictator is better for the US than insuring the continued independence of a democracy. I hang my head in shame for the United States.
I can’t imagine the US providing direct military support to Russia so that actions in support of Ukraine could be deemed as hostile to the US military.
Not that whether I can imagine the US doing something counts for much under the current government, which has already committed so much evil way beyond what I'd ever have imagined possible.
This war will end and Europe will increase its defences, if only because it has to . And the Trump administration will not last for ever . But what I can’t work out is how long it will be before the USA can be trusted as an ally . Suppose the US were to enter into a war against China or vice versa. It would be incredibly foolhardy to form an alliance knowing that they might switch sides with a new administration, or why buy weapons from a country that could cut all technical support on a whim . The United States government are traitors now.
Also , thinking of China, what is to stop them suddenly coming in with offers to support a nervous Europe? Or indeed Ukraine?
And next year there will be great celebrations across the states that 250 years ago they managed to escape the power of a mad king. How’s that working out for y’all?
We lost some decisive battles in Russia’s hybrid warfare against us: simply the reality — American Democracy buckled under foreign pressure, and without the exculpatory shame of outright foreign occupation.
I will not believe the war is done. But I think it matters to realize that we’re talking about the shame of successful subversion and defeat, not so much unprompted betrayal.
The war could continue for a very long time in some form. Likewise Trump and Trumpism may be with us for decades. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but my brain resists pondering those conditions. I expect we got a lot of lesson learning ahead and complacency won't be a problem..
Well, in one month Trump has united Europe and restored Britain’s relationship within it , made Canadians more proud of being Canadian and their liberal government more popular, boosted spending across NATO and created a situation where the next U.S. president, of whatever party , will have far less influence over a more wary west and will never again be able to claim leadership of the free world. I suppose that’s something
I mean, in a way it is true. George Washington only caused the French-Indian war (1754-1763). Trump is working up to causing a war between Russia and the EU.
Washington technically started it, but he did not really cause it. There's no way Russia and Prussia would have started fighting each other just because some young Virginian planter fired some shots in the wilderness of Ohio. The Seven Years War had some serious reasons, just like WWI was not really about some assassination (but rather about Germany wanting to replace the British world order with its own).
When are the American people going to rise up? And protest? And take to the streets? Trump does not have some vast majority……….maybe he had 52% of the votes. There is a huge critical mass of people who hate him. It’s time to take to the streets. Surely, they will not stand for this. I’m expecting at least considerable pushback. Aiding and abetting a Russian attack on a sovereign democracy is unheard of in the US. I’m thinking of its origins. It’s blasphemy.
There's no leadership. And the only direct confrontation between the Dems and Trump (other than just heckling his speech) was on an issue (transgender participation in women sports) on which Trump has a clear moral high ground and 80% public support.
Dem activists care about their woke pet peeves that are actually a lot less popular than MAGA. And they don't care about Ukraine at all because they have long been suspicious of American power. In fact about two and a half years ago dozens of House progressives (including my Congresswoman) sent a letter to Biden asking to do essentially what Trump is doing now, i.e. negotiate with Russia and offer sanctions relief in exchange for a ceasefire. https://progressives.house.gov/_cache/files/5/5/5523c5cc-4028-4c46-8ee1-b56c7101c764/B7B3674EFB12D933EA4A2B97C7405DD4.10-24-22-cpc-letter-for-diplomacy-on-russia-ukraine-conflict.pdf A year ago AOC voted against Ukraine aid. And lots of them want to cut defense spending in order to fund social programs.
Centrist Dems are simply not the kind of people to organize protests and take to the streets.
The Dems have been a sorry lot for a while. Just think back to 18 years ago. The real estate bubble was about to burst (and soon to take the entire global economy with it). Putin had just declared war on the West in Munich (and invaded Georgia the following year in the middle of the US presidential campaign). China was rising quickly. In the meantime the US was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The holiday from history was definitely over.
So, as the things were getting really serious, did the Dems offer candidates like FDR or Truman? Well, they had a trio of co-frontrunners for the nomination. One candidate's main qualification was marrying a young ambitious lawyer/politician and then tolerating his serial infidelities and suffering one public humiliation after another. Another candidate's SOLE qualification was that his father (with whom he never had any contact whatsoever) was from Africa. The third candidate was an ambulance chaser sleazeball who had a love child while his wife was dying of cancer and illegally paid hush money to his mistress (but unlike Trump, he did not even pay his own money even though he could afford a $28 million estate in NC - BTW I frequently drove by the house he bought for his mistress in Charlotte).
So the Dems appeared utterly unserious about governance, failed to tackle the worst economic crisis in living memory (the stimulus was too small, and nothing was done about underwater mortgages that were the underlying cause of the crisis), tried a stupid reset with Putin (failing even to translate "reset" correctly into Russian on a silly button they offered to the Russians), then done very little about Putin's aggression in Ukraine and finally just watched as Putin was helping Trump in the election - after the Dems themselves had already set the stage for Trump.
> Dem activists care about their woke pet peeves that are actually a lot less popular than MAGA. And they don't care about Ukraine at all because they have long been suspicious of American power.
You’ve stated this opinion many times. It’s reflective of your own particular bias which seems to magnify certain aspects of Democratic politics. I’m guessing you are anti-DEI, perhaps not realizing that to Republicans DEI is code for “black, women, and LGBTQ”.
Democrats are for equal opportunity and equal justice. Republicans are for maintaining the status quo, which entrenches their power.
“Woke” simply means treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. If you are against that, then we are not on the same side.
It does not matter what code Republicans use or what the Left thinks its terms mean. There's the objective reality of what DEI and wokeness in general mean in practice. It also does not matter how much I am capable of holding my nose and voting for that crap. The voters in the middle hate all that and consider it un-American. That's what matters. Wokeness was a fad that is now over. It's as dead as the disco ball.
Some ideas may sound good and even noble in theory but not survive encounter with reality. E.g. some countries are now talking about leaving treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions. I bet we'll stop hearing about net zero soon. And I'm sure that the next Dem president (if we ever have one) will pick a big fight with the Squad.
You have no fucking clue about American politics. There are no "voters in the middle" such as you imagine. Proven by polling not to exist in any meaningful numbers.
The actual "voters in the middle" are very very different from your media-propaganda-created fantasy.
Net zero is inevitable, BTW, the world isn't going to tolerate uncontrolled climate destruction much longer. Within my lifetime, fossil fuel promoters will be shot as traitors, probably.
It's already passed the economic threshold where fossil fuels are unprofitable and require subsidies. That means everyone promoting them is corrupt and thieving. That opens up the door to them becoming taboo.
You are welcome. But it's not hard for me to say this, as I'm not a Democrat but a lifelong conservative. I vote for Democrats because I must, not because I enjoy it.
My hope is that this opens the door for a new conservative party with two messages: (1) fiscal responsibility, and (2) ending corruption. No social issues baggage from either side. They could peel away a lot of the Democrats and energize Independents and Republicans who dislike MAGA. The Republican Party started in the 1854 midterm and while Fremont did not win the 1856 election, the Republican Party became firmly established and grew from there. Of course, it also led to the Civil War, but we're probably headed there anyway. I think Adam Kinzinger could be a nucleus for this.
I also used to be centrist - a regular vote-splitter. But I live in a state that went very red a long time ago and have not voted Republican in a long time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party left me.
You missed Hochul announcing outright that New York will not listen to court orders from Louisiana or Texas on the issue of abortion, where the Republican "kill the women by denying them medical care" position is very unpopular. And you missed Pritzker's denunciation of the Trump administration.
Most Americans seem to worry more about the price of eggs than Ukraine. Ukraine is a distant land most would not be able to find on the map. They know nothing about its history nor how much Russian speaking Ukrainians fear and loath Russia.
I'm afraid Trump is just itching to invoke the Insurrection Act and martial law. And large scale protests are the excuse he's praying for. I think small protests EVERYWHERE across the US makes better strategic sense. And of course that has already begun...but must (and will) be ramped up as more and more Americans finally wake up to the ugly insanity they have voted into power. Alas I fear the day Trump will declare martial law with no justifiable pretext whatsoever. The king's prerogative.
Such numbers ignore the fact that ca 46% of the electorate stayed home..(For reference in Germany it was 15%) Granted some of those were denied their right but in any case at least 2/3 of the electorate enabled him. It's past time to be quibbling about the size of his mandare, and also past time to begin actively resisting.
Thank you Stephen Schiff. This nonsense of less than hal of US citizens dont support Trump has gone on long enough. 77m Americans voted for him. 99m did not bother to vote so enabled Trump. 74m voted for Harris. The problem is not just Trump. The problem is the malaise within the USA nation that has enabled someone like Trump/Republicans to gain power (twice). Does anyone seriously believe that those 176m potential voters are suddenly going to find their humanity again? The RoW needs to plan for what comes after Trump. That USA might just be a whole lot worse. It is a risk the RoW cannot afford to take.
This article from our press argues "there is no habit of fighting between society and the political system as there is in Europe. It is a country that does not have the memory of dictatorships, it does not have the memory of political catastrophes, but it is a country that has a deep and sincere perception of democracy and morality.
However, this morality can be distorted, it can be affected by the construction of a parallel universe. As the Trump administration does, which - if we follow the speeches, whether by the president or by others responsible - is actually competing to create a parallel universe where the American economy is doing great, where the United States is respected and loved all over the world, and where Americans live well."
I know little about the US, but as an outsider it seems to me a 'memory of political catastrophes' is precisely what drives the Trumpists. Defeat in the Civil War, Reconstruction in the South, later the New Deal, African-American Civil Rights, feminism, gay and lesbian rights and other liberation movements - seen from the US right these are all catastrophes to be avenged. And having taken this stand they are correct in seeing Putin's Russia as an ally and Europe (including Ukraine & the UK, but not Hungary) as enemies. This is what the rest of us (I am British, for my sins) are up against.
Yes, a lot of that is driven by revenge. But it's a broader form of revenge. The combination of the Information Revolution and globalization has dramatically changed advanced societies (both for better and sometimes for worse). And there are both winners and losers. The losers (very often poorly educated middle aged men) just want to avenge their loss of socioeconomic status due to societal changes. Many of them actually want to "burn all that down", hence the destruction of NATO and the world order, as well as, domestically, the Civil Service and the great institutions like FAA, NIH, CDC, FDA that until very recently were the envy of the world. You can see it on the electoral map (especially a finer one, broken down by counties rather than states). The areas with globally very competitive industries like Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street vote heavily for Democrats. The areas with "loser" industries like steel making (which is in decline not so much because of imports but because of new composite materials and computer design allowing to make parts just as strong with a lot less steel) and with industries losing tons of jobs due to automation (e.g. car assembly plants) went heavily MAGA.
We've been through this before. Once upon a time Republicans were the champions of the Industrial Revolution and new technologies like automobile, while the Dems were on the side of the fast shrinking (in terms of the labor force) agriculture. A Trump-like populist William Jennings Bryan ran for president three times, just like Trump, and lost all three times. Eventually the Dems got rid of him in presidential politics by making him Secretary of State. He eventually resigned because he was totally opposed to supporting UK and France in WWI and making the world safe for democracy. Fortunately, he was not president - Wilson was (I shudder to think what might have happened to the world had Bryan been president in 1917). Shortly before the end of his life he served as a prosecutor in the infamous Monkey Trial. BTW there's right now a trial in California in which RFK Jr. is suing my employer over a vaccine that I work on, alleging it's very dangerous (now, I don't really know just how safe it is, but I had my son vaccinated with it a few months ago and so far he's fine :-)
Yes, I can see there is a Burn It Down coalition, some wealthy people who think they can gain from it and their wealth will insulate them from the consequences, some impoverished people who are angry and feel they have little to lose. We saw this in the UK with Brexit.
The Burn it Down coalition is an extremely significant part of American politics, and actually contains most of the people who are misclassified as being "in the middle".
Thankfully Trump is actually starting to alienate them. They're going, basically, "I wanted to burn some things down, not THAT"
If you look at some of the areas that voted heavily for Brexit and then look at where in the American colonies settlers from those areas were going to in the 18th century, you'll find areas that voted heavily for Trump. OTOH you look at blue areas on the Eastern seaboard even in the generally red South, and you'll see places that were settled by people from Southeast England. So a lot of all that is about attitude toward elites and government. Another regional similarity between the US and UK is that special forces of both countries are full of the Scotch-Irish.
Americans who pay most attention to foreign policy historically voted Republican. And they kept voting Republican even through Trump. About 50% of voters stick with the Republican team through just an anything. It is a marker of identity. They have nothing to protest but themselves.
And to most Trump’s opponents, this horrendous action is like countless others. And street protests did not help - see how Black Lives Matter has played out in terms of federal policy. What matters is voting him out.
The NSDAP won just under 44% of the votes in the March 1933 general election in Germany, which was far from free. It was enough though to enable what followed....
Things work differently in large federal countries than in small unitary countries. The pushback is happening but it's sort of fractured, *like it was when the USSR collapsed*
Is there now any reason why European leaders should not acknowledge that NATO no longer exists as a US led organisation? Time to form a European Defence Treaty Organisation I think.
"Moreover, Ive been told that US forces in Europe are actively making it more difficult for other partners to deliver aid to Ukraine." This is very disturbing. Are American troops in Europe actively hindering European decisions? Is an enemy already on the ground in Europe?
OK, I've long since given up on the Republican [sic] party. But where the hell are the Democrats? And the American press? What is this deafening silence? Are people waiting for Trump and his goons to send actual arms to the Russians? Or would it be indelicate to comment even on that?
The Democrats are too busy protesting Trump's ban on transgender participation in women sports (an issue on which 80% of Americans support him). Most of the media are right wing (Fox News, Joe Rogan and other podcasters etc.). The networks fear for their broadcast licenses. WaPo and LA Times are on Trump's side now. Most people don't care about foreign affairs, besides, Trump says we wants the killing to end, and that's a good thing, right? A quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. And March Madness will start soon...
Yes, and there are probably dozens of Dem politicians still wanting to "defund the police." You point out that 80% of public opposes biological males competing against women in sports. Most politicians are not stupid politically when confronted with such dire headwinds.
It’s an idiotic diversion of an issue in the context of widespread doping, designer babies and the way that sports money — in men’s sports — creates a demand for position-optimized freaks.
When the pot for winning a women’s sport anywhere approaches that for men, we can worry about men gender-bending to chase medals.
This is not to say it has gotten a bunch of amateur sports commentators exercised and spawned a number of barstool conversations, but at some point you can’t fight stupid.
Well, Gavin Newsom just took the correct position. But there are still lots of noisy leftists. And MAGA pretends they represent the entire Democratic Party.
What do you think Democrats can do, when Republicans have a majority in both Houses? A key test will come if the proposed Continuing Resolution is put to a vote. This would require 60 votes which means 7 Democratic Senators would have to break ranks for it to pass.
Sounds like an accurate summary to me. As for the press, I give up. But as for the politics: anyone else in the mood for a third party? One based on retro ideals like decency, fair play, non-evilness, and a basic sense of economic reality?
A third party would just split anti-Trump vote. As a lifelong conservative (reportedly, I was already temperamentally conservative at age two), I would love to have a sane, patriotic, compassionate, reality-based, pro-market, pro-trade, fiscally conservative and socially moderate center-right party led by somebody like John Kasich (whom I strongly supported in the 2016 primaries). But the reality right now is that the only game in town are the Dems and MAGA. So I vote accordingly.
The third party would have to be designed very carefully to be attractive specifically to people who are very conservative-minded, in order to guarantee that it will take more votes from the Trumpist party (I'm not calling it a “Republican” party anymore even though that remains the official name) than from the Democrats.
Yes, of course. But the question is whether they will want to throw their votes away on party that is more aligned with them than the current GOP. If they really don't want Trump, they already vote Democrat (like I do).
And those who understand what is going on would continue to vote strategically like you do.
But I’d expect a significant number of voters to exist who don’t see the existential threat to democracy etc, and who would never vote for someone who takes any kind of socially progressive or socially liberal position.
If I was a citizen or resident of the US, I’d seriously consider creating a True Conservative Party, totally without any expectation of getting elected to any office, just to draw votes away from the Trumpist party on that flank.
I think there are a lot of folks who share your basic values and economic common-sense, but who are allergic to the woke rhetoric of the Democratic party. Give them the opportunity to vote for someone who stands firmly for what they care about most, and counsels toleration about the rest, and I think you might be surprised at the result.
I’ve been ready for a long time. The comments down thread are off base. Such a party, running in safe Republican congressional seats, could result in Democrats not putting forward a candidate in those races. Those particularly races would still have only two options for voters. But from a national perspective, that would become the beginning of a three party system.
> The Democrats are too busy protesting Trump's ban on transgender participation in women sports
This is in no way the major issue for Democrats. It’s just something which looms large for you for some reason. It’s all about your own perception, which likely means it’s one of the most important issues for you. Why is that?
I don't actually care as I don't have any daughters. For that matter, I thought Trump's "She's for they/them, he's for you" ad was a stupid waste of money. Turned out to be his most effective ad.
Democrats won’t throw trans people under the bus. We’ll leave that up to the Republicans. They are doing a fine job of that.
There are so few trans women in sports, and it is an issue which should be decided without demonizing a small and already victimized group.
Anyone like you who has this as their key issue has something wrong with their moral compass. It’s a minor issue. It’s not an issue which Democrats magnify. It’s an issue which conservatives magnify, reflecting their tendency to create in groups and out groups.
Nobody should be demonized. But that's an effective issue for Republicans because 80% are with them. So of course they will continue to magnify it as long as the Dems take a very unpopular stand. OF COURSE they'll rather talk about that than, say, J6 pardons. But do Dems have to oblige them? You know, they could instead talk about Trump saying that he trusts Putin - only 9% of Americans say they do too...
"The Democrats" is not an organized political party and never has been. You can see one, fairly strong, response from Governors Pritker and Hochul. You can see another, moderately strong, response from Jasmine Crockett. You can see absolutely pathetic responses rom Hakeem Jeffries.
This is because of First Past the Post. It's impossible to have two ideologically coherent parties with our election system. There are a dozen factions in the Democratic Party, and some of them are.... yeeeech, some of them are really bad, and some of them are really pathetic, and some of them are really corrupt.
I spent a fair amount of time in the infighting in the primaries in NY for over a decade in order to kick out the "literally takes bribes from Republicans to switch sides" caucus in the NY State Senate.
Does Trump not realize that if he really wants to impose his will on Ukraine, he'll have to join the war? Russia is not nearly powerful enough on its own. I guess he does not, as he grew up at the time the Russians were thought to be very powerful and has surrounded himself with people with the same worldview. I wonder if Keith Kellogg is too old to have a realistic assessment of the Russians, as he was already a senior officer as the Cold War was heating up in the early 1980's and the Russians were highly overrated (back then the First Guard Tank Army was aimed at the Fulda Gap and was considered fearsome, but in September 2022 it "donated" 100 or so armored vehicles in working order to the Ukrainians in their Kupyansk offensive).
Trump isn’t really all that interested in imposing his will on Ukraine. Trumpism just wants to crush and turn everyone who currently appears to be sufficiently weak and who stands for democracy and human decency and truthfulness, and that happens to include Ukraine under Zelenskyy.
Yes, but that's still Trump's will. He wants Ukraine to surrender, i.e. he tries to impose his will and make them do something they clearly don't want to. He's drunk with power.
At some point, surely things like these and mooted troop moves to Hungary have to start being seen as red lines by Macron and Starmer? I can't believe they're completely naïve , but have just been stalling for time? The US has effectively joined the other side - and as I type that, I know it sounds mad. But the evidence is there.
I didn’t vote for Starmer but Macron and Starmer , and Lord Mandleson are neither naive nor stupid and are probably trying to get as much time as they can. I don’t see how they can’t realise what Trump is by now
I think Trump has partnered with Putin in much the same way as India's Modi. Modi and Trump are fellow autocrats with similar worldviews. Trump is looking more like Putin than Modi with his imperialist declarations.
Neither India nor the U.S. will likely send troops to fight with Russia, yet they are happy to prop up Putin in other ways. India has been long partnered with Russia going back to the Soviet Union. Both India and the Republican party see China as their singular enemy. A faction of the Republican party foolishly thinks Russia can be split away from China with close economic ties with Russia.
I’m inclined to agree with you that India under Modi may be the closest parallel to the US under Trump.
HOWEVER, switching off essential functions that Ukraine had been relying on without providing to Ukraine adequate warning, while evidently informing Russia sufficiently in advance that Russia could prepare and exploit that moment — that is in my eyes so horrible to defy comparison with anything that I know of and might consider comparing it with.
It's worth noting that Modi has been consistently unable to consolidate dictatorial power *because of the state governments* of India. He's been working on it for over a decade and the state governments keep resisting.
This is an important point to remember for the US.
Certainly whoever is the cunning mastermind behind the US government’s current actions (it can’t be Trump himself who is too lazy, too narrowly interested in near-totally only himself, too weak, and not intelligent enough — I think that it might plausibly be Vance) seems to have been thinking about what the US army might be made to do, or prevented from doing, in the context of the intended transformation of the US into a fascist state. Nota bene I don’t consider the US to be a fascist state at this time —it’s still far from that and I’m still hopeful that it may never reach that point— but the intention and direction of the current developments are clear. This was announced in shocking clarity with the nazi salutes at Trump’s inauguration, and it has been followed through consistently in the actions of the Trumpist government since then.
I believe that they will find it quite impossible to implement a fascist state across the US. There is far too much opposition, including very powerful groups such as state governments. But while trying to do so, they are quite capable of breaking the US.
Remember what happened in the 1991 coup against Gorbachev.
Also recall that the Russian Empire almost broke up in 1914 -- Lenin put it back together *very* cleverly, but I'm not seeing anyone with that level of finesse amongst the wannabe autocrats in the US.
With the USA cutting off intelligence sharing now is the time to use Canada's RadarSat capabilities. Although this will be much slower than US eyes in the sky capability it still can be used to pinpoint Russian logistic hubs and supplies. Then there are French and other European country capabilities and of course the HUMINT resources Europe can bring to the table. These will not compensate for the US capabilities but it could whip Europeans to wake-up to the fact that they need a European unified military command.
Thank you. There are no words for the despicable actions of the Trump administration. Again, we all pay for the ignorance here in the US. How many people know or care about Ukraine? There are no excuses. The information about Trump’s ties to Russia has been out there for a long time. Now, the US is complicit in crimes against the Ukrainian people.
What Trump wants is for Zelensky to sign the minerals deal. It's both a show of dominance and an opportunity for the stupid American pundits to announce that Trump's "peace plan" has real momentum.
Trump is applying extortion in the most extreme and cruel manner and the land-for-peace advocates are essentially silent. I was listening to Tom Friedman yesterday. He is talking about "strong security guarantees" being essential. Trump has already said the U.S. will do nothing to secure the peace beyond the risible mineral deal. So where are the credible security guarantees coming from? The Europeans putting tens of thousands of tripwire troops in is an important but vastly insufficient start.
Trump is destroying Ukraine. That isn't the worst problem. The inability of thought leaders to accept that Trump's peace plan is hopeless is hampering an effective response.
What should Zelensky do? I don't see any tactical gain in signing the mineral deal. He's stuck. This is the worst of times.
Ukraine’s political allies are going to have to bring attention to what is happening. And by allies I include the misguided ones like Ignatius and Friedman who actually mean well. They have to turn against the hopeless negotiations. I think Phillips piece today is helpful in the political fight we face. We need more from others.
These "Days of Infamy" committed by the Trump regime will be forever associated with the US in future histories. It is still hard to comprehend how quickly the US has turned into another facet of the "Evil Empires". One day...and I hope soon...Trump and his lickspittles will be called to account for their treachery towards Ukraine...and the dismantling of constitutional law, domestically. It will be years before the US will be trusted again, even if the Democrats manage to re-take control of the government. The Hegemon is dead.
I just don't know about your last sentence. The U.S. will remain powerful economically and militarily. Certainly the U.S. is headed downhill in both aspects. The U.S. is over as a hegemon in Europe. The U.S. looks headed to a status like China's. Is China a hegemon?
I am ashamed to hold a US passport now. I am ashamed to say I live in the US. I am ashamed to even think I can call those who voted for the orange narcissist fellow countrymen. They are all cruel, corrupt, and authoritarian.
With arms deliveries and intelligence co-operation stopped, what leverage has Trump over the Ukrainians to get them to do what he wants? He could promise to restore these, but how could they trust that he would keep his promises? Is it feasible for the Ukrainians to make signing the minerals agreement conditional on these being restored, since Trump really seems to want the agreement? These conditions would have to be written into the agreement so that it would be void if he goes back on his word. It seems to me that it would be foolhardy of the Ukrainians to sign the agreement without this.
It's very likely that Trump will restore the satellites and some military aid if Zelensky signs the mineral deal.
The rub is that Trump insists that the mineral deal constitutes Ukraine's security guarantees from the U.S. perspective. Once Zelensky signs the deal, he will be implicitly accepting those terms. If Zelensky signals in any way that he expects more security, Trump of course will accept the mineral deal and continue to squeeze Ukraine.
Unfortunately Zelensky's best play now is to simply signal to world that they must reject Trump's game completely. I say unfortunately because most ppl, myself included. thought the U.S. might still be of some use.
My impression is that in Trump’s way of thinking, besides agreeing to Trump’s demands, Zelenskyy simply has no alternatives that don’t lead to eventually signing an unconditional surrender to Russia. Trump doesn’t only verbally disrespect Europe as a whole, he probably also disrespects Europe enough in his internal mental processes to disregard anything that Ukraine’s European allies might do.
This “However, almost immediately after Trump cuts intelligence sharing, the Russians launch a massive missile barrage.”, seems like an act of war, by the USA. How else can it be interpreted in reality?
Switching sides in the middle of a war is an act of treachery. What is now the position of British and European forces? Will not actions in support of Ukraine be deemed as hostile to the US military?
I think it is fair to identify the Republican President as a traitor to the United States. It is unbelievable that a President of the United States would throw the wealth and power of the country on the side of an autocrat. The President has apparently decided that supporting a fascist dictator is better for the US than insuring the continued independence of a democracy. I hang my head in shame for the United States.
He deserves a traitor's reward. There is a lamppost with his name on it somewhere.
I can’t imagine the US providing direct military support to Russia so that actions in support of Ukraine could be deemed as hostile to the US military.
Not that whether I can imagine the US doing something counts for much under the current government, which has already committed so much evil way beyond what I'd ever have imagined possible.
This war will end and Europe will increase its defences, if only because it has to . And the Trump administration will not last for ever . But what I can’t work out is how long it will be before the USA can be trusted as an ally . Suppose the US were to enter into a war against China or vice versa. It would be incredibly foolhardy to form an alliance knowing that they might switch sides with a new administration, or why buy weapons from a country that could cut all technical support on a whim . The United States government are traitors now.
Also , thinking of China, what is to stop them suddenly coming in with offers to support a nervous Europe? Or indeed Ukraine?
And next year there will be great celebrations across the states that 250 years ago they managed to escape the power of a mad king. How’s that working out for y’all?
Trust is incredibly hard to regain once lost. Trump has set a precedent of untrustworthiness that will last for generations.
We lost some decisive battles in Russia’s hybrid warfare against us: simply the reality — American Democracy buckled under foreign pressure, and without the exculpatory shame of outright foreign occupation.
I will not believe the war is done. But I think it matters to realize that we’re talking about the shame of successful subversion and defeat, not so much unprompted betrayal.
The war could continue for a very long time in some form. Likewise Trump and Trumpism may be with us for decades. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but my brain resists pondering those conditions. I expect we got a lot of lesson learning ahead and complacency won't be a problem..
I actually expect Trump to crown himself king on July 4, 2026. Just because he can.
With his profile on Mount Rushmore
Of course. In his address to Congress this week he actually claimed that in his first month he accomplished more than Washington.
Well, in one month Trump has united Europe and restored Britain’s relationship within it , made Canadians more proud of being Canadian and their liberal government more popular, boosted spending across NATO and created a situation where the next U.S. president, of whatever party , will have far less influence over a more wary west and will never again be able to claim leadership of the free world. I suppose that’s something
Yes, unfortunately.
I mean, in a way it is true. George Washington only caused the French-Indian war (1754-1763). Trump is working up to causing a war between Russia and the EU.
Washington technically started it, but he did not really cause it. There's no way Russia and Prussia would have started fighting each other just because some young Virginian planter fired some shots in the wilderness of Ohio. The Seven Years War had some serious reasons, just like WWI was not really about some assassination (but rather about Germany wanting to replace the British world order with its own).
Yes, that is what I was saying, Trump had more Impact, however negative, compared to GW.
When are the American people going to rise up? And protest? And take to the streets? Trump does not have some vast majority……….maybe he had 52% of the votes. There is a huge critical mass of people who hate him. It’s time to take to the streets. Surely, they will not stand for this. I’m expecting at least considerable pushback. Aiding and abetting a Russian attack on a sovereign democracy is unheard of in the US. I’m thinking of its origins. It’s blasphemy.
There's no leadership. And the only direct confrontation between the Dems and Trump (other than just heckling his speech) was on an issue (transgender participation in women sports) on which Trump has a clear moral high ground and 80% public support.
Dem activists care about their woke pet peeves that are actually a lot less popular than MAGA. And they don't care about Ukraine at all because they have long been suspicious of American power. In fact about two and a half years ago dozens of House progressives (including my Congresswoman) sent a letter to Biden asking to do essentially what Trump is doing now, i.e. negotiate with Russia and offer sanctions relief in exchange for a ceasefire. https://progressives.house.gov/_cache/files/5/5/5523c5cc-4028-4c46-8ee1-b56c7101c764/B7B3674EFB12D933EA4A2B97C7405DD4.10-24-22-cpc-letter-for-diplomacy-on-russia-ukraine-conflict.pdf A year ago AOC voted against Ukraine aid. And lots of them want to cut defense spending in order to fund social programs.
Centrist Dems are simply not the kind of people to organize protests and take to the streets.
The Dems are a sorry lot. You are certainly right that there is a lack of leadership on their side. They are acting like they are totally defeated.
The US is starting to look like Jimmy Rushton (UK foreign policy analyst) said-“this is the decline of an empire through sheer stupidity”.
The Dems have been a sorry lot for a while. Just think back to 18 years ago. The real estate bubble was about to burst (and soon to take the entire global economy with it). Putin had just declared war on the West in Munich (and invaded Georgia the following year in the middle of the US presidential campaign). China was rising quickly. In the meantime the US was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The holiday from history was definitely over.
So, as the things were getting really serious, did the Dems offer candidates like FDR or Truman? Well, they had a trio of co-frontrunners for the nomination. One candidate's main qualification was marrying a young ambitious lawyer/politician and then tolerating his serial infidelities and suffering one public humiliation after another. Another candidate's SOLE qualification was that his father (with whom he never had any contact whatsoever) was from Africa. The third candidate was an ambulance chaser sleazeball who had a love child while his wife was dying of cancer and illegally paid hush money to his mistress (but unlike Trump, he did not even pay his own money even though he could afford a $28 million estate in NC - BTW I frequently drove by the house he bought for his mistress in Charlotte).
So the Dems appeared utterly unserious about governance, failed to tackle the worst economic crisis in living memory (the stimulus was too small, and nothing was done about underwater mortgages that were the underlying cause of the crisis), tried a stupid reset with Putin (failing even to translate "reset" correctly into Russian on a silly button they offered to the Russians), then done very little about Putin's aggression in Ukraine and finally just watched as Putin was helping Trump in the election - after the Dems themselves had already set the stage for Trump.
> Dem activists care about their woke pet peeves that are actually a lot less popular than MAGA. And they don't care about Ukraine at all because they have long been suspicious of American power.
You’ve stated this opinion many times. It’s reflective of your own particular bias which seems to magnify certain aspects of Democratic politics. I’m guessing you are anti-DEI, perhaps not realizing that to Republicans DEI is code for “black, women, and LGBTQ”.
Democrats are for equal opportunity and equal justice. Republicans are for maintaining the status quo, which entrenches their power.
“Woke” simply means treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. If you are against that, then we are not on the same side.
It does not matter what code Republicans use or what the Left thinks its terms mean. There's the objective reality of what DEI and wokeness in general mean in practice. It also does not matter how much I am capable of holding my nose and voting for that crap. The voters in the middle hate all that and consider it un-American. That's what matters. Wokeness was a fad that is now over. It's as dead as the disco ball.
Some ideas may sound good and even noble in theory but not survive encounter with reality. E.g. some countries are now talking about leaving treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions. I bet we'll stop hearing about net zero soon. And I'm sure that the next Dem president (if we ever have one) will pick a big fight with the Squad.
You have no fucking clue about American politics. There are no "voters in the middle" such as you imagine. Proven by polling not to exist in any meaningful numbers.
The actual "voters in the middle" are very very different from your media-propaganda-created fantasy.
Net zero is inevitable, BTW, the world isn't going to tolerate uncontrolled climate destruction much longer. Within my lifetime, fossil fuel promoters will be shot as traitors, probably.
It's already passed the economic threshold where fossil fuels are unprofitable and require subsidies. That means everyone promoting them is corrupt and thieving. That opens up the door to them becoming taboo.
You don't understand the American public *at all*. I've tried to explain it to you before but you aren't listening.
"Woke" means "not asleep". While sleepwalking zombie behavior is popular in the US, it's not popular among politically active people.
> A year ago AOC voted against Ukraine aid.
Not true. She voted for it.
https://archive.is/DSQ8D
Oh, I did not realize they split the vote on that single law into four separate votes.
Thank you for saying this.
You are welcome. But it's not hard for me to say this, as I'm not a Democrat but a lifelong conservative. I vote for Democrats because I must, not because I enjoy it.
My hope is that this opens the door for a new conservative party with two messages: (1) fiscal responsibility, and (2) ending corruption. No social issues baggage from either side. They could peel away a lot of the Democrats and energize Independents and Republicans who dislike MAGA. The Republican Party started in the 1854 midterm and while Fremont did not win the 1856 election, the Republican Party became firmly established and grew from there. Of course, it also led to the Civil War, but we're probably headed there anyway. I think Adam Kinzinger could be a nucleus for this.
I also used to be centrist - a regular vote-splitter. But I live in a state that went very red a long time ago and have not voted Republican in a long time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party left me.
That's exactly how I've felt for a decade.
You missed Hochul announcing outright that New York will not listen to court orders from Louisiana or Texas on the issue of abortion, where the Republican "kill the women by denying them medical care" position is very unpopular. And you missed Pritzker's denunciation of the Trump administration.
Most Americans seem to worry more about the price of eggs than Ukraine. Ukraine is a distant land most would not be able to find on the map. They know nothing about its history nor how much Russian speaking Ukrainians fear and loath Russia.
Unfortunately.
I'm afraid Trump is just itching to invoke the Insurrection Act and martial law. And large scale protests are the excuse he's praying for. I think small protests EVERYWHERE across the US makes better strategic sense. And of course that has already begun...but must (and will) be ramped up as more and more Americans finally wake up to the ugly insanity they have voted into power. Alas I fear the day Trump will declare martial law with no justifiable pretext whatsoever. The king's prerogative.
Actually he got 49.8%, or 1.46% more than Harris.
Such numbers ignore the fact that ca 46% of the electorate stayed home..(For reference in Germany it was 15%) Granted some of those were denied their right but in any case at least 2/3 of the electorate enabled him. It's past time to be quibbling about the size of his mandare, and also past time to begin actively resisting.
Thank you Stephen Schiff. This nonsense of less than hal of US citizens dont support Trump has gone on long enough. 77m Americans voted for him. 99m did not bother to vote so enabled Trump. 74m voted for Harris. The problem is not just Trump. The problem is the malaise within the USA nation that has enabled someone like Trump/Republicans to gain power (twice). Does anyone seriously believe that those 176m potential voters are suddenly going to find their humanity again? The RoW needs to plan for what comes after Trump. That USA might just be a whole lot worse. It is a risk the RoW cannot afford to take.
RoW=?
Ahh... probably "Rest of the Word" (?)
This article from our press argues "there is no habit of fighting between society and the political system as there is in Europe. It is a country that does not have the memory of dictatorships, it does not have the memory of political catastrophes, but it is a country that has a deep and sincere perception of democracy and morality.
However, this morality can be distorted, it can be affected by the construction of a parallel universe. As the Trump administration does, which - if we follow the speeches, whether by the president or by others responsible - is actually competing to create a parallel universe where the American economy is doing great, where the United States is respected and loved all over the world, and where Americans live well."
https://spotmedia-ro.translate.goog/stiri/politica/romania-nu-e-sub-radar-mai-devreme-sau-mai-tarziu-se-va-ajunge-si-la-ea-ce-a-vrut-rusia-cu-getii-interviu-video?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I know little about the US, but as an outsider it seems to me a 'memory of political catastrophes' is precisely what drives the Trumpists. Defeat in the Civil War, Reconstruction in the South, later the New Deal, African-American Civil Rights, feminism, gay and lesbian rights and other liberation movements - seen from the US right these are all catastrophes to be avenged. And having taken this stand they are correct in seeing Putin's Russia as an ally and Europe (including Ukraine & the UK, but not Hungary) as enemies. This is what the rest of us (I am British, for my sins) are up against.
Yes, a lot of that is driven by revenge. But it's a broader form of revenge. The combination of the Information Revolution and globalization has dramatically changed advanced societies (both for better and sometimes for worse). And there are both winners and losers. The losers (very often poorly educated middle aged men) just want to avenge their loss of socioeconomic status due to societal changes. Many of them actually want to "burn all that down", hence the destruction of NATO and the world order, as well as, domestically, the Civil Service and the great institutions like FAA, NIH, CDC, FDA that until very recently were the envy of the world. You can see it on the electoral map (especially a finer one, broken down by counties rather than states). The areas with globally very competitive industries like Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street vote heavily for Democrats. The areas with "loser" industries like steel making (which is in decline not so much because of imports but because of new composite materials and computer design allowing to make parts just as strong with a lot less steel) and with industries losing tons of jobs due to automation (e.g. car assembly plants) went heavily MAGA.
We've been through this before. Once upon a time Republicans were the champions of the Industrial Revolution and new technologies like automobile, while the Dems were on the side of the fast shrinking (in terms of the labor force) agriculture. A Trump-like populist William Jennings Bryan ran for president three times, just like Trump, and lost all three times. Eventually the Dems got rid of him in presidential politics by making him Secretary of State. He eventually resigned because he was totally opposed to supporting UK and France in WWI and making the world safe for democracy. Fortunately, he was not president - Wilson was (I shudder to think what might have happened to the world had Bryan been president in 1917). Shortly before the end of his life he served as a prosecutor in the infamous Monkey Trial. BTW there's right now a trial in California in which RFK Jr. is suing my employer over a vaccine that I work on, alleging it's very dangerous (now, I don't really know just how safe it is, but I had my son vaccinated with it a few months ago and so far he's fine :-)
Yes, I can see there is a Burn It Down coalition, some wealthy people who think they can gain from it and their wealth will insulate them from the consequences, some impoverished people who are angry and feel they have little to lose. We saw this in the UK with Brexit.
The Burn it Down coalition is an extremely significant part of American politics, and actually contains most of the people who are misclassified as being "in the middle".
Thankfully Trump is actually starting to alienate them. They're going, basically, "I wanted to burn some things down, not THAT"
If you look at some of the areas that voted heavily for Brexit and then look at where in the American colonies settlers from those areas were going to in the 18th century, you'll find areas that voted heavily for Trump. OTOH you look at blue areas on the Eastern seaboard even in the generally red South, and you'll see places that were settled by people from Southeast England. So a lot of all that is about attitude toward elites and government. Another regional similarity between the US and UK is that special forces of both countries are full of the Scotch-Irish.
Americans who pay most attention to foreign policy historically voted Republican. And they kept voting Republican even through Trump. About 50% of voters stick with the Republican team through just an anything. It is a marker of identity. They have nothing to protest but themselves.
And to most Trump’s opponents, this horrendous action is like countless others. And street protests did not help - see how Black Lives Matter has played out in terms of federal policy. What matters is voting him out.
51 odd percent of the vote, and borderline 50% of the population voted, with a decisive 2-3% sitting home in a snit because eggs were too expensive.
To be clear, they weren’t entirely wrong to be grouchy with the incumbent administration, but the consequences are still playing out.
He got 49.8% of the votes.
The NSDAP won just under 44% of the votes in the March 1933 general election in Germany, which was far from free. It was enough though to enable what followed....
Things work differently in large federal countries than in small unitary countries. The pushback is happening but it's sort of fractured, *like it was when the USSR collapsed*
Is there now any reason why European leaders should not acknowledge that NATO no longer exists as a US led organisation? Time to form a European Defence Treaty Organisation I think.
"Moreover, Ive been told that US forces in Europe are actively making it more difficult for other partners to deliver aid to Ukraine." This is very disturbing. Are American troops in Europe actively hindering European decisions? Is an enemy already on the ground in Europe?
OK, I've long since given up on the Republican [sic] party. But where the hell are the Democrats? And the American press? What is this deafening silence? Are people waiting for Trump and his goons to send actual arms to the Russians? Or would it be indelicate to comment even on that?
The Democrats are too busy protesting Trump's ban on transgender participation in women sports (an issue on which 80% of Americans support him). Most of the media are right wing (Fox News, Joe Rogan and other podcasters etc.). The networks fear for their broadcast licenses. WaPo and LA Times are on Trump's side now. Most people don't care about foreign affairs, besides, Trump says we wants the killing to end, and that's a good thing, right? A quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. And March Madness will start soon...
Dems are not busy protecting transgender athletes. You are repeating right wing propaganda.
Maine Governor Janet Mills actually had a confrontation with Trump in the White House precisely over this subject. Trump was so happy...
That confrontation was over “States Rights.”
Technically. Just like the Civil War. But people are not stupid, so they always look at the right in question.
Yes, and there are probably dozens of Dem politicians still wanting to "defund the police." You point out that 80% of public opposes biological males competing against women in sports. Most politicians are not stupid politically when confronted with such dire headwinds.
It’s an idiotic diversion of an issue in the context of widespread doping, designer babies and the way that sports money — in men’s sports — creates a demand for position-optimized freaks.
When the pot for winning a women’s sport anywhere approaches that for men, we can worry about men gender-bending to chase medals.
This is not to say it has gotten a bunch of amateur sports commentators exercised and spawned a number of barstool conversations, but at some point you can’t fight stupid.
Well, Gavin Newsom just took the correct position. But there are still lots of noisy leftists. And MAGA pretends they represent the entire Democratic Party.
What do you think Democrats can do, when Republicans have a majority in both Houses? A key test will come if the proposed Continuing Resolution is put to a vote. This would require 60 votes which means 7 Democratic Senators would have to break ranks for it to pass.
They can do what Bernie Sanders has been doing: saying openly, and loudly, that what the Trump administration is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong.
No, any budget resolution cannot be filibustered, so the only bottleneck is in the House.
According to The Hill, 60 votes are required to pass a Continuing Resolution in the Senate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5183519-government-shutdown-congress-funding/
Oh, I always thought it was classified as "budget".
Sounds like an accurate summary to me. As for the press, I give up. But as for the politics: anyone else in the mood for a third party? One based on retro ideals like decency, fair play, non-evilness, and a basic sense of economic reality?
A third party would just split anti-Trump vote. As a lifelong conservative (reportedly, I was already temperamentally conservative at age two), I would love to have a sane, patriotic, compassionate, reality-based, pro-market, pro-trade, fiscally conservative and socially moderate center-right party led by somebody like John Kasich (whom I strongly supported in the 2016 primaries). But the reality right now is that the only game in town are the Dems and MAGA. So I vote accordingly.
The third party would have to be designed very carefully to be attractive specifically to people who are very conservative-minded, in order to guarantee that it will take more votes from the Trumpist party (I'm not calling it a “Republican” party anymore even though that remains the official name) than from the Democrats.
Yes, of course. But the question is whether they will want to throw their votes away on party that is more aligned with them than the current GOP. If they really don't want Trump, they already vote Democrat (like I do).
And those who understand what is going on would continue to vote strategically like you do.
But I’d expect a significant number of voters to exist who don’t see the existential threat to democracy etc, and who would never vote for someone who takes any kind of socially progressive or socially liberal position.
If I was a citizen or resident of the US, I’d seriously consider creating a True Conservative Party, totally without any expectation of getting elected to any office, just to draw votes away from the Trumpist party on that flank.
I think there are a lot of folks who share your basic values and economic common-sense, but who are allergic to the woke rhetoric of the Democratic party. Give them the opportunity to vote for someone who stands firmly for what they care about most, and counsels toleration about the rest, and I think you might be surprised at the result.
It would split the anti-Trump vote, but it might split the pro-Trump vote too.
I just don't see him losing a large share of the vote.
What have we got to lose?
I’ve been ready for a long time. The comments down thread are off base. Such a party, running in safe Republican congressional seats, could result in Democrats not putting forward a candidate in those races. Those particularly races would still have only two options for voters. But from a national perspective, that would become the beginning of a three party system.
> The Democrats are too busy protesting Trump's ban on transgender participation in women sports
This is in no way the major issue for Democrats. It’s just something which looms large for you for some reason. It’s all about your own perception, which likely means it’s one of the most important issues for you. Why is that?
I don't actually care as I don't have any daughters. For that matter, I thought Trump's "She's for they/them, he's for you" ad was a stupid waste of money. Turned out to be his most effective ad.
Democrats won’t throw trans people under the bus. We’ll leave that up to the Republicans. They are doing a fine job of that.
There are so few trans women in sports, and it is an issue which should be decided without demonizing a small and already victimized group.
Anyone like you who has this as their key issue has something wrong with their moral compass. It’s a minor issue. It’s not an issue which Democrats magnify. It’s an issue which conservatives magnify, reflecting their tendency to create in groups and out groups.
Sure. They'll rather throw America under the bus.
Nobody should be demonized. But that's an effective issue for Republicans because 80% are with them. So of course they will continue to magnify it as long as the Dems take a very unpopular stand. OF COURSE they'll rather talk about that than, say, J6 pardons. But do Dems have to oblige them? You know, they could instead talk about Trump saying that he trusts Putin - only 9% of Americans say they do too...
They literally figured out how many trans people there were in school sports in, IIRC, Ohio, and it was 1.
One person. The bill to ban trans people from sports was targeting one person. Poor kid.
"The Democrats" is not an organized political party and never has been. You can see one, fairly strong, response from Governors Pritker and Hochul. You can see another, moderately strong, response from Jasmine Crockett. You can see absolutely pathetic responses rom Hakeem Jeffries.
This is because of First Past the Post. It's impossible to have two ideologically coherent parties with our election system. There are a dozen factions in the Democratic Party, and some of them are.... yeeeech, some of them are really bad, and some of them are really pathetic, and some of them are really corrupt.
I spent a fair amount of time in the infighting in the primaries in NY for over a decade in order to kick out the "literally takes bribes from Republicans to switch sides" caucus in the NY State Senate.
You nailed it.
Does Trump not realize that if he really wants to impose his will on Ukraine, he'll have to join the war? Russia is not nearly powerful enough on its own. I guess he does not, as he grew up at the time the Russians were thought to be very powerful and has surrounded himself with people with the same worldview. I wonder if Keith Kellogg is too old to have a realistic assessment of the Russians, as he was already a senior officer as the Cold War was heating up in the early 1980's and the Russians were highly overrated (back then the First Guard Tank Army was aimed at the Fulda Gap and was considered fearsome, but in September 2022 it "donated" 100 or so armored vehicles in working order to the Ukrainians in their Kupyansk offensive).
I believe Trump does not realize this.
I believe Putin does realize this.
Trump isn’t really all that interested in imposing his will on Ukraine. Trumpism just wants to crush and turn everyone who currently appears to be sufficiently weak and who stands for democracy and human decency and truthfulness, and that happens to include Ukraine under Zelenskyy.
Yes, but that's still Trump's will. He wants Ukraine to surrender, i.e. he tries to impose his will and make them do something they clearly don't want to. He's drunk with power.
This article has left me sick in my stomach. Thank you as always Phillips for your honest assessment
At some point, surely things like these and mooted troop moves to Hungary have to start being seen as red lines by Macron and Starmer? I can't believe they're completely naïve , but have just been stalling for time? The US has effectively joined the other side - and as I type that, I know it sounds mad. But the evidence is there.
I didn’t vote for Starmer but Macron and Starmer , and Lord Mandleson are neither naive nor stupid and are probably trying to get as much time as they can. I don’t see how they can’t realise what Trump is by now
I think Trump has partnered with Putin in much the same way as India's Modi. Modi and Trump are fellow autocrats with similar worldviews. Trump is looking more like Putin than Modi with his imperialist declarations.
Neither India nor the U.S. will likely send troops to fight with Russia, yet they are happy to prop up Putin in other ways. India has been long partnered with Russia going back to the Soviet Union. Both India and the Republican party see China as their singular enemy. A faction of the Republican party foolishly thinks Russia can be split away from China with close economic ties with Russia.
I’m inclined to agree with you that India under Modi may be the closest parallel to the US under Trump.
HOWEVER, switching off essential functions that Ukraine had been relying on without providing to Ukraine adequate warning, while evidently informing Russia sufficiently in advance that Russia could prepare and exploit that moment — that is in my eyes so horrible to defy comparison with anything that I know of and might consider comparing it with.
Modi's a LOT smarter than Trump, though.
It's worth noting that Modi has been consistently unable to consolidate dictatorial power *because of the state governments* of India. He's been working on it for over a decade and the state governments keep resisting.
This is an important point to remember for the US.
Oh ya, Trump is in a tier with the Latin American dictators of the 1970s. He will be as brutal as the purged army will allow domestically.
Certainly whoever is the cunning mastermind behind the US government’s current actions (it can’t be Trump himself who is too lazy, too narrowly interested in near-totally only himself, too weak, and not intelligent enough — I think that it might plausibly be Vance) seems to have been thinking about what the US army might be made to do, or prevented from doing, in the context of the intended transformation of the US into a fascist state. Nota bene I don’t consider the US to be a fascist state at this time —it’s still far from that and I’m still hopeful that it may never reach that point— but the intention and direction of the current developments are clear. This was announced in shocking clarity with the nazi salutes at Trump’s inauguration, and it has been followed through consistently in the actions of the Trumpist government since then.
I believe that they will find it quite impossible to implement a fascist state across the US. There is far too much opposition, including very powerful groups such as state governments. But while trying to do so, they are quite capable of breaking the US.
Remember what happened in the 1991 coup against Gorbachev.
Also recall that the Russian Empire almost broke up in 1914 -- Lenin put it back together *very* cleverly, but I'm not seeing anyone with that level of finesse amongst the wannabe autocrats in the US.
With the USA cutting off intelligence sharing now is the time to use Canada's RadarSat capabilities. Although this will be much slower than US eyes in the sky capability it still can be used to pinpoint Russian logistic hubs and supplies. Then there are French and other European country capabilities and of course the HUMINT resources Europe can bring to the table. These will not compensate for the US capabilities but it could whip Europeans to wake-up to the fact that they need a European unified military command.
Thank you. There are no words for the despicable actions of the Trump administration. Again, we all pay for the ignorance here in the US. How many people know or care about Ukraine? There are no excuses. The information about Trump’s ties to Russia has been out there for a long time. Now, the US is complicit in crimes against the Ukrainian people.
What Trump wants is for Zelensky to sign the minerals deal. It's both a show of dominance and an opportunity for the stupid American pundits to announce that Trump's "peace plan" has real momentum.
Trump is applying extortion in the most extreme and cruel manner and the land-for-peace advocates are essentially silent. I was listening to Tom Friedman yesterday. He is talking about "strong security guarantees" being essential. Trump has already said the U.S. will do nothing to secure the peace beyond the risible mineral deal. So where are the credible security guarantees coming from? The Europeans putting tens of thousands of tripwire troops in is an important but vastly insufficient start.
Trump is destroying Ukraine. That isn't the worst problem. The inability of thought leaders to accept that Trump's peace plan is hopeless is hampering an effective response.
What should Zelensky do? I don't see any tactical gain in signing the mineral deal. He's stuck. This is the worst of times.
Ukraine’s political allies are going to have to bring attention to what is happening. And by allies I include the misguided ones like Ignatius and Friedman who actually mean well. They have to turn against the hopeless negotiations. I think Phillips piece today is helpful in the political fight we face. We need more from others.
These "Days of Infamy" committed by the Trump regime will be forever associated with the US in future histories. It is still hard to comprehend how quickly the US has turned into another facet of the "Evil Empires". One day...and I hope soon...Trump and his lickspittles will be called to account for their treachery towards Ukraine...and the dismantling of constitutional law, domestically. It will be years before the US will be trusted again, even if the Democrats manage to re-take control of the government. The Hegemon is dead.
I just don't know about your last sentence. The U.S. will remain powerful economically and militarily. Certainly the U.S. is headed downhill in both aspects. The U.S. is over as a hegemon in Europe. The U.S. looks headed to a status like China's. Is China a hegemon?
I am ashamed to hold a US passport now. I am ashamed to say I live in the US. I am ashamed to even think I can call those who voted for the orange narcissist fellow countrymen. They are all cruel, corrupt, and authoritarian.
With arms deliveries and intelligence co-operation stopped, what leverage has Trump over the Ukrainians to get them to do what he wants? He could promise to restore these, but how could they trust that he would keep his promises? Is it feasible for the Ukrainians to make signing the minerals agreement conditional on these being restored, since Trump really seems to want the agreement? These conditions would have to be written into the agreement so that it would be void if he goes back on his word. It seems to me that it would be foolhardy of the Ukrainians to sign the agreement without this.
It's very likely that Trump will restore the satellites and some military aid if Zelensky signs the mineral deal.
The rub is that Trump insists that the mineral deal constitutes Ukraine's security guarantees from the U.S. perspective. Once Zelensky signs the deal, he will be implicitly accepting those terms. If Zelensky signals in any way that he expects more security, Trump of course will accept the mineral deal and continue to squeeze Ukraine.
Unfortunately Zelensky's best play now is to simply signal to world that they must reject Trump's game completely. I say unfortunately because most ppl, myself included. thought the U.S. might still be of some use.
My impression is that in Trump’s way of thinking, besides agreeing to Trump’s demands, Zelenskyy simply has no alternatives that don’t lead to eventually signing an unconditional surrender to Russia. Trump doesn’t only verbally disrespect Europe as a whole, he probably also disrespects Europe enough in his internal mental processes to disregard anything that Ukraine’s European allies might do.
This is just so terribly sad…. Does France have the satellite / intelligence capacity to replace the US ?
They certainly seem to say they will make the capacity they do have available. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/07/ukraine-loses-access-to-vital-maxar-satellite-imagery-reports-militarnyi/