[yeyeyeyeyeyeyee]

The US is busy making the biggest own-goal one could imagine.

From a position of world-wide dominance and respect, it is being destroyed at a rate that is too quick for most to even start to comprehend what the outcome of these actions will be. I suspect the consequences of these actions will be carried for the rest of our lives, as they are not so easy to turn back.

Lots of other countries are standing by watching while the USA has seemingly found enough rope to hang itself.

[trescenzi]

It’s like the “fish don’t know they are in water” saying. As an American if you weren’t educated to be aware of Pax Americana you very much struggle to understand it. The current world order is far from perfect and many suffer as a result but the people in charge of this effort absolutely benefit from it far more than they seem to understand.

[totallynothoney]

As a non-American cinemagoer, I wonder who will be the Chinese equivalent of Michael Bay.

[NikkiA]

Jackie Chan?

[gambiting]

Well, Brexit took the spot previously. Not sure if US can top it, but they sure as hell trying.

[lokimedes]

You have go go back to the collapse of the British empire to witness anything this grand. And that was driven by external factors.

[drawkward]

This is Russia driven. Its right out of Aleksandr Dugin's playbook for Russian political dominance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

[hrgak100]

Dugin had ideas of spheres of influence. Roughly speaking, he thought that America should be dominated by the US, Europe/Africa by the EU and Asia by Russia.

This however coincides with the much older ideas of the technocracy movement, which was championed by Musk's grandfather Haldeman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement#The_Techn...

So it is not necessarily Russia driven, but surely RT has recently published an article that defends the Technate (RT is blocked, so here is a copy):

https://thepressunited.com/updates/heres-why-trump-really-wa...

Europe is a bit slow in picking up on all this: Russia, the US and China are carving up the world and Macron calls a summit to determine how to make Russia and China eternal enemies. The EU (and Ukraine!) have been played since 2008/2014.

[deepsquirrelnet]

> In the Americas, United States, and Canada: Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".

It sounds like he’s less concerned about the west, but knows that there needs to be political chaos in order to prevent the US from interfering with Russia’s political goals.

I guess that seems obvious at this point, but worrisome that the US government is now actively supporting of those goals.

If you take an objective view that these are geopolitical conditions that would be beneficial to Russian objectives, and pair it with the concurrency of these things playing out, then it’s hard to see it as coincidence.

[mikrotikker]

The seeds for this were set in the cold war if you believe Soviet defector Yuri Besmenov. He stated that the soviets removed malcontents from their society, the revolutionary Marxists that paved the way for the USSR. Eventually they figured that instead of killing or gulaging them, send them to the USA where the egalitarian society would allow them sow their revolutionary ideas into future generations.

[drawkward]

The idea of spheres of influnce is far older than Dugin sure, but you are not considring that the tactics being deployed are consistent with Dugin, and support the overall strategy outlined by Dugin, in service of goals listed by Dugin.

I think it is safe to say that the west is experiencing Duginism.

[aussiegreenie]

Russia can not dominate *ANYTHING*. Its economy is about the size of Australia's despite having nearly four times the population. Its much-vaunted military could not defeat a minnow like Ukraine.

Yes, Russia has nuclear weapons but no one would commit suicide by using them.

Russia is dying, so are Italy, Japan and China etc.

[skinnymuch]

How is China dying??

[sirdvd]

I assume is referring to the mean ageing demographic of those country.

[drawkward]

And yet, Russia has bent the US to its will regarding Ukraine. Curioius.

[futuraperdita]

I believed this at the beginning of the Ukraine war and went to read Dugin's philosophy to get a sense of where this was all headed. I believe that the Dugin-centric view of Russian _realpolitik_ is an intellectual meme moreso than an accurate view of reality.

Dugin's thought is being used as a rosetta stone in Kremlinology, but I believe that _Foundations of Geopolitics_ has been coöpted as an intellectual veil for a bare Russian imperialism. There is not a lot of evidence that Russia is trying to enact actual Duginist political thinking (which is a specific kind of ethnocentrism highly influenced by Heidegger; he outlines it in _The Fourth Political Theory_). It's being used in a way not dissimilar to Marx being co-opted as a means to domination in Leninism.

We are looking for a more complex answer to a simple problem, which is that an authoritarian leader obsessed with dominance wants to expand that sphere of power where he feels wronged. It doesn't have to be intellectual.

[skinnymuch]

Marx isn’t being co-opted by Leninism. It builds on Marxism. Have you read The State and Revolution or Imperialism or What is to be Done? Unless you mean dominating the bourgeoisie which is what Marxism is about too.

[insane_dreamer]

It's not Russia driven.

It's driven by Trump and Musk egos. It's Nero watching Rome burn, to bring about his new greatness.

[Spooky23]

Not driven. They influence right wing people and probably Trump himself to set the environment that moves towards their policy goals.

Lenin had a newspaper called “the spark” the concept was that a spark would light the flame to revolution. Trump was the spark in the US, but the tinder had been laid out over many years amongst political weirdos who are now prominent.

Putin isn’t a communist, but he’s a former KGB guy who wants the USSR back. They want the outcome, the ideas are a means to an end.

[cmurf]

Pre-USSR, he sees himself as a Czar akin to one of the Greats, a resumption of the Russian Empire. Culture wide revanchism, it's not exclusive to Putin and will still occur without him.

[drawkward]

It does seem quite implicating that both Musk and Trump have had multiple reported private calls with Putin. I dont recall other ex presidents meeting with Putin so frequently.

Missing dossiers of Russian Intel from Mar-a-Lago...which of course we never got to hear the full story of thanks to Judge Cannon and SCOTUS.

This is so on the nose it would be rejected if someone wrote it as a novel or film.

[conception]

Not to mention all the republicans who had dinner with him on July 4th of all dates. I think Stein has visited a few tomes as well.

[machomaster]

In the same vain and USA's politics it driven by Unabomber.

Dugin's influence on Putin/Russia is a total fake news. Aleksandr "Putin's favorite political/historical/cultural icon/advisor according to Western media" Dugin, has NEVER even met with Putin, as in not a single time.

Don't spread fake news.

[drawkward]

You do realize that ideas can be spread by other means than face to face conversation, right?

Your argument is super goofy.

David Foster Wallace is my favorite author, and I've never even met the guy!

[machomaster]

And where is the evidence for such influence, on the only person that matters (Putin)? There is none.

Are you a powerful dictator? Is Wallace living under your rule? Is Wallace's writing influencing your policy? Is Wallace proclaiming everywhere that he is close to you, that he is your advisor (you can't advise without the connection), that you are worshiping him?

Don't be goofy and intentionally misunderstand my arguments.

[enraged_camel]

Brexit pales in comparison to the damage that has _already_ been done to the US federal government. The dust just hasn’t settled yet so most of it not visible right now.

[insane_dreamer]

Not sure about that. Brexit was irreversible. We can potentially begin to reverse this in 4 years time. But yes it could take decades.

[croes]

Regain trust is hard and the US allies have lost it.

[insane_dreamer]

True. But remember that Bush similarly broke European trust with his "war on terror", and Obama was able to repair those bridges.

But yeah, it's worse this time around.

[biofox]

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once... shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again!

[ICameToComment]

You sure there will be a change allowing a reversal in four years? I doubt that this kind of steamrolling power will be contained by law or institutions. They came into office while blatantly disrespecting law and institutions in the first place. There will be not enough left to get back to last year's state of affairs. This is not going to be a short hiccup. This is changing the world and the path of the future and I hate to witness it happening.

[nickpeterson]

It’s like blood letting, but less effective.

[grandempire]

All the catastrophic things that were predicted form Brexit didn’t really happen though

[hermitcrab]

It is significantly worse the most pundits predicted.

[grandempire]

I would do a quick google search of Brexit news articles with the year 2016.

[hermitcrab]

I was living in the UK at a time. Nobody worth listening to was predicting war or famine.

[grandempire]

So you agree that there was a large amount of hyperbole which was intended to create fear but not constructed in good faith?

that’s what I would conclude from “it exists but wasn’t taken seriously”

[coldtea]

Not tied to failing and increasingly irrelevant EU?

What is significantly worse, is the governing clases continuing the same pre-Brexit policies and deals post-Brexit, to nullify it.

[redserk]

The UK is becoming a destination country for hiring low-cost services labor. Not exactly an endorsement of future success.

[grandempire]

Low cost compared to what? California and New York? That’s also true of many states where finance and tech companies have smaller offices.

[enraged_camel]

Yes they did? Is this a joke? Or have you not been following the UK’s descent into poverty and irrelevance?

[rayiner]

The UK’s GDP per capita trajectory diverged around the end of the Great Recession. That was before the Brexit vote (2016) and long before the actual Brexit (2020). France and Italy have been stuck in more or less the same doldrums since the same time: https://datacommons.org/place/country/FRA?utm_medium=explore...

[Aloisius]

Em. Those aren't inflation adjusted.

- UK - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDGBR

- FR - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDFRA

- IT - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDITA

It would be somewhat unusual if they didn't all look similarish given the level of trade between them.

The UK government predicted a 2% reduction in growth over 15 years with a soft brexit compared to what it would have been otherwise, but seeing it on a graph may be difficult given those countries were also hurt by Brexit.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I'm not disagreeing with your main point (by a host of metrics, the UK and EU have stagnated economically compared to the US since the end of the great recession), but I also don't think GDP per capita is the best metric to use here given widening levels of inequality. Median income levels taking into account government transfers are much more informative in my opinion.

[Ylpertnodi]

As a fairly regular visitor (for work), what particular doldrums are you referencing? Admittedly, the loss of the US market will be a big blow for exports, but the anti-US (Trump) feelings strongly would put up with a financial hit rather than dealing with Mr. Loopy. And Tesla's are becoming very unpopular...and unsellable.

[rayiner]

The per capita GDP of France, Italy, and the UK have been flat since 2009.

[dukeyukey]

I'm as anti-Brexit as they come, but it didn't change the UK's direction much. It's still the 2nd richest European state (with the 1st declining fast), the 3rd largest tech ecosystem worldwide, one of the premier military powers. Brexit wasn't great, or even good, but it's not disastrous.

[hnhg]

That’s because Europe overall is declining fast. However the rest of the world is rising fast and the next ten years should be interesting from this alone.

[cinntaile]

What metrics are you using?

[grandempire]

Here a few that were seriously threatened

- all the major corporations would leave and there would be no jobs - collapse of the pound - start of wars within the UK and potentially with EU

[casey2]

if THIS comment isn't satirical then truly and honestly you should lay off the propaganda pipe.

[Arkhadia]

As someone who has studied the American constitution and been actively engaged in much civil discourse locally, I firmly believe and comprehend the logic of an unmanageably large “government” being a very bad thing on many levels. Please explain to me your obsession with a massive tax funded “government” and your thinking behind a comment such as the one you made. Why do you think this way? Nothing could be more in line with the American forefathers vision than what trump and Elon are doing by dismantling a grossly overweight, fraud ridden, and useless system that the US calls much of its government. I’m eager for a cogent argument, that blends constitutionality and logic, for such a broken system. Hoping you’re the one to make this argument

[bdangubic]

Nothing could be more in line with the American forefathers vision than what trump and Elon are doing

the problem with people like you (I sincerely do not mean this in ANY derogatory way, just generalising people that make these arguments) is that you are using “American forefathers” as you see fit. American forefathers would be ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES seeing and hearing what Trump and Elon are doing. They literally fought against people like the two of them.

If I have too choose between bloated federal government and having a President who thinks he is above the law and his Supreme Court cronies saying so in so many words and having a fucking african immigrant with god access to government computer systems I choose bloated government any day of the week and twice on sunday

[hn_throwaway_99]

There have been a lot of times over the past couple weeks where I've thought "OK, is the US toast now??", and the thing that finally did it for me was Trump's prominent post "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."

Trump announced the rule of law is dead and there has been basically no pushback. I mean, sure, it may have just been bluster, but the Republicans used to put the idea of the Constitution on a pedestal. Now the president is saying, loudly and prominently, that laws don't apply to him (or anyone who is "saving" the country), and it's crickets.

There is no way the US comes back from this in my opinion. I'm not saying something like "collapse" is imminent, but I think the decline is irreversible once the rule of law has been declared null and void.

Also, while I obviously have my opinions, I honestly would be genuinely interested in someone who has a different take (i.e. who thinks Trump's statement isn't as catastrophic as I think it is) to explain their rationale.

[throaway89]

The whole issue with the idea that "Trump is destroying democracy," isn't that what Trump is doing is NOT damaging to democracy, or corrupt, or what have you. It is. But Trump will be gone in 4 years. There will be a new Republican nominee. Whatever (and I mean, whatever) that nominee says will be the new party line. And the idea that the Republicans are willing to continue an actual overthrow of law and order in the US is...close to a fantasy. The Republicans are with Trump as long as he is the most popular candidate. As soon as he is no longer useful in that function, he's toast.

[Erem]

> the idea that the Republicans are willing to continue an actual overthrow of law and order in the US is...close to a fantasy

No, imagining them continuing to do what they have been doing in the open is not fantasy.

Imagining them somehow "snapping back" to supporting constitutional order is much more fantastical. Especially in the face of the anti-judiciary salvos of JD Vance -- a leading candidate for the next nominee.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Yeah, TBH I find throaway89's comment a little baffling.

I'm not that concerned that Trump said what he said. I'm concerned that he said that and there was no pushback from Republicans or probably about half the country (and I'm guessing that at least a third of the country vehemently, enthusiastically supported the idea).

I saw a good post recently that described what is happening as essentially a "'cold' civil war". That is, in normal times, there may be strong disagreements about policy, the role of government, etc., but there is general agreement on the framework of democracy, the role of institutions, etc. But it feels to me now that we're past that point, where each side essentially sees the other in "existential threat" terms.

For me personally, I don't want to be there, but if you believe that it's fine for the President of the US to declare the rule of law null and void, then there is no middle ground, primarily because if you're declaring the rule of law null, then the only option for both sides is non-legal conflict. I can't think of a statement that is more "anti-American" to me than that. Which is again why I'm open to the idea (TBH actually I'm really hoping) that I'm either misinterpreting the statement or there is some other reason to think it's not as catastrophic as I view it.

[throaway89]

I'm saying the reason there isn't any pushback is because the whole system is working as "winner-take-all," hence pushing back on ANYTHING that Donald Trump does, when there is no other Republican who can challenge him for leadership, is like scoring on your own net. It's a bad strategy if you're trying to win the game!

Adolfo Franco (interesting name for a right-wing strategist..) said it best on Al Jazeera. "How can he be a spokesperson for a man like Donald Trump?" He was asked. his answer was that he's a spokesperson for the REPUBLICAN PARTY, and in 4 years, there will be a new nominee. Simple as that. Time will tell what happens.

Polarization has reached "existential threat levels." It will eventually go back. Vance may find that moderation is in his party's interest after all the chaos of Trump. They are very different personalities.

[totallynothoney]

As someone from LATAM who is more aware than they should be about the US system of government, I agree that the statement and lack of pushback is catastrophic for what it says about the current climate, but rule of law has been as weak as gypsum board for decades. The US system is full of shiny toys for a populist to cement power, and the only safeguards are decorum and the threat of eventual impeachment (good luck with that!). These issues exist because the American system is old and full of incremental cruft; newer democracies have had the advantage of starting with better safeguards, and there's an inability to actually change the system due to the legal system and Congress being a mess.

Practically speaking, common law is the judicial branch using moonlogic upon moonlogic to create pseudo-laws (Roe v. Wade, Citizens United v. FEC) that may be good or bad but should be made by Congress. If the Constitution is unclear, it should be modified through a democratic process that can actually pass, not be continually reinterpreted in absurd ways by a 9-person court that can be corrupted and has no term limits. Congress is unable to fix itself; the unlimited filibuster in the Senate proves that, and the "pro-forma" session is simply embarrassing. Clear systemic change is excruciatingly difficult, so actions must be taken through fuzzy emergent messes without guardrails like executive orders.

"Is outrageous thing X from this EO illegal? Idk, let's wait months to check with the courts."

The popular comment I see is that institutions are people at the end of the day, so "strong institutions" is just a buzzword, and the current crisis comes from cowardice and inaction. But if the mechanisms aren't there to stop a bad actor in the executive, the best they can do is make some noise (which they should). If they truly bend the rules, the executive can always just write a more unhinged EO, so it all reduces to who has control over actual enforcement.

The problem is widespread; for example, the election system is simply dysfunctional, like Flint water tier. From the basics of gerrymandering, to the electoral college creating absurd things like "swing states" (if you want to give more power to some states, just weight the votes), no real universal national ID, voter suppression, voting by mail is a horrible idea that invites conspiracy theories and is a crutch for the lack of accessibility, voting machines are bad and a crutch (see the French). Not even the schizophrenic rules-set is actually followed; the 2000 election was decided by Supreme Court fuckery. Trump would've been stupid not to try to interfere in 2020; an election was successfully stopped 20 years ago and nothing happened. The most basic democratic institution failed and the priority wasn't "let's fix this immediately, oh my fucking god." So yeah, rule of law has constantly been chipped away for some time, good luck with the midterms.

To be fair to the average American, the idea that "gradually, then suddenly" also applies to the state is something people learn firsthand and hopefully teach their descendants. The history of outsiders only goes so far.

[tim333]

NYT sub headline just now:

>...concerns that the U.S. will abandon Europe and align with President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Nothing to worry about with Musk doing nazi salutes and Trump looking at hanging with the nearest we have to a modern reich.

[insane_dreamer]

The US just decided to negotiate with Putin directly, leaving Europe out of it even though they're the ones affected by the Russia-Ukraine war, not the US.

And Vance explicitly said that Russia can't be expected to go back to the pre-war borders. In other words, Russia gets what they want (Donbas).

[Sabinus]

Trump also ruled out plenty of (admittedly high risk) interventions and solutions before the negotiations.

Why would he make concessions for nothing in return? I thought he was meant to be a great negotiator and businessman.

[hakfoo]

The perceived return could be timing and presentation.

If he has to spend the rest of his term negotiating back and forth over which flag flies over a particular outhouse in Western Crimea, he may not see that as being a successful deal-maker.

Being able to say "we got buy-in for our first proposal, took me four days to end the conflict" fits his image.

[coldtea]

>From a position of world-wide dominance and respect

It already had very low respect (except by paid hacks and client states) and declining world-wide dominance for decades. And the churn rate for those very dissaponting results, reflected in public debt, was huge.

And that's assuming a nation having "world-wide dominance" is a good thing to begin with.

[buyucu]

i agree