There has been much drama and hysteria in the last few days since the angry press briefing at the White House involving Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, US president Donald Trump and his deputy JD Vance.
Currently Europe is no match for- or even close to being able to produce military equipment to any scale that would threaten Russia - also they have no identity or National pride so man power is low. Net zero and energy neutering is a real threat to being able to compete at all. The snowflake revolution has produced crying soy boys who can’t hold down a job I doubt they can lift a gun. This satanic cabal is filled with hubris and not much else, they’ve inadvertently castrated their fighting population and people are so disillusioned they would join no army: I predict they’ll bankrupt themselves and become a despotic backwater.
But I’m wondering, how can any country trust the US after this?
If Ukraine can be screwed over like this on a whim then how can any country sign an agreement with the US (security or trade) with the knowledge that the other party has no obligation to follow through?
I guess what I mean is that if the US is this divided then any agreement may well only last until the next election so why bother signing treaties with a country that flip flops from fascism to whatever the alternative is every 4-8 years
If my theory is correct, most foreign leaders who were allies of the US in the past or/and are proxies for US interests, know what is going on. So they understand that Trump is an obstacle to be worked around, with guidance from the US 'deep state', until his successor takes office. The broader geopolitical agenda continues.
It should cause other countries to think hard about their reliance on the US but that would only happen if those countries' leaders genuinely represented their people's interests, which largely they do not.
Your argument hinges on ignoring several obvious trends, to wit:
The increasing cultural wedge between American and European elites, especially American attitudes towards its security priorities (pivot to the Pacific)
Russia's economic and military strengthening as a result of the Ukraine war, opposite to what NATO intended
The existential need of Europe's economy for energy, which only Russia can securely and affordably supply.
All of this points to a true breakdown of the Atlanticist alliance and emergence of a more secure multipolar world order based on international law (not vague 'rules')
The decline in European economies has simply further cemented the US's position as the pre-eminent player in NATO.
There is not much objective evidence on the strength/weakness of Russia's military right now. It has suffered massive losses but is also battle hardened and is now a war-oriented economy. But, as Chomsky originally noted, it is interesting how either way it is used to justify more militarism: 'Russia is weak, Ukraine just needs a little more support and it can win' or 'Russia is strong and if it defeats Ukraine it will come for the rest of Europe'.
There *ought to be* a schism between European and US elites, but that could only happen if Europeans had leaders that actually represent their interests rather than acting as proxies for US interests as is quite evidently the case at the moment.
Currently Europe is no match for- or even close to being able to produce military equipment to any scale that would threaten Russia - also they have no identity or National pride so man power is low. Net zero and energy neutering is a real threat to being able to compete at all. The snowflake revolution has produced crying soy boys who can’t hold down a job I doubt they can lift a gun. This satanic cabal is filled with hubris and not much else, they’ve inadvertently castrated their fighting population and people are so disillusioned they would join no army: I predict they’ll bankrupt themselves and become a despotic backwater.
This is honestly horrifying if true
But I’m wondering, how can any country trust the US after this?
If Ukraine can be screwed over like this on a whim then how can any country sign an agreement with the US (security or trade) with the knowledge that the other party has no obligation to follow through?
I guess what I mean is that if the US is this divided then any agreement may well only last until the next election so why bother signing treaties with a country that flip flops from fascism to whatever the alternative is every 4-8 years
If my theory is correct, most foreign leaders who were allies of the US in the past or/and are proxies for US interests, know what is going on. So they understand that Trump is an obstacle to be worked around, with guidance from the US 'deep state', until his successor takes office. The broader geopolitical agenda continues.
It should cause other countries to think hard about their reliance on the US but that would only happen if those countries' leaders genuinely represented their people's interests, which largely they do not.
Your argument hinges on ignoring several obvious trends, to wit:
The increasing cultural wedge between American and European elites, especially American attitudes towards its security priorities (pivot to the Pacific)
Russia's economic and military strengthening as a result of the Ukraine war, opposite to what NATO intended
The existential need of Europe's economy for energy, which only Russia can securely and affordably supply.
All of this points to a true breakdown of the Atlanticist alliance and emergence of a more secure multipolar world order based on international law (not vague 'rules')
Not ignoring any of those trends, they fit into the theory quite comfortably.
Germany rolled over when Nordstream was taken out of commission and has not pushed back to date. The US has been cashing in on the consequences as I wrote about here: https://politicaleconomist.substack.com/p/one-graph-to-understand-the-global
The decline in European economies has simply further cemented the US's position as the pre-eminent player in NATO.
There is not much objective evidence on the strength/weakness of Russia's military right now. It has suffered massive losses but is also battle hardened and is now a war-oriented economy. But, as Chomsky originally noted, it is interesting how either way it is used to justify more militarism: 'Russia is weak, Ukraine just needs a little more support and it can win' or 'Russia is strong and if it defeats Ukraine it will come for the rest of Europe'.
There *ought to be* a schism between European and US elites, but that could only happen if Europeans had leaders that actually represent their interests rather than acting as proxies for US interests as is quite evidently the case at the moment.