[yo_yo_yo-yo]

I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this. I feel so sorry for a great, entrepreneurial people.

US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628

[tyre]

“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.

Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.

Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)

In the short-term, they might not have much choice.

[ethbr1]

They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate.

I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate

Taipei needs nukes. There simply isn’t another guarantor of sovereign security anymore.

[_t9ow]

> Taipei needs nukes

This essay explains very lucidly why it's not as straightforward as you think: https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-s...

[JumpCrisscross]

> As soon as China catches a whiff of the program, it’s an instant invasion

This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated.

> doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins

You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay.

Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1].

[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear

[tokioyoyo]

The risks don’t outweigh the potential benefits. Building a functional nuke isn’t an operation with a couple of laptops and internet connection. Also, Taiwanese economy is extremely tied to China. Things aren’t really black and white here. It’s not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders, nobody flies between countries and etc. Supermajority of people actually support status quo, rather than aiming for complete independence. It’s not an easy thing to balance.

[eximius]

Ah yes, China is famously averse to threats to the wellbeing of its citizens. /s

[nemo44x]

They probably already have them. There’s no advantage to announcing that. Similar to Israel.

Regardless there’s very probably multiple USA nuclear subs surrounding the place.

[ethbr1]

> There’s no advantage to announcing that

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE&t=226s

There's a huge reason for Taiwan to announce that: their primary opponent already has nuclear weapons!

The reason Israel is heavily encouraged to maintain nuclear strategic ambiguity is an attempt to dissuade the entire Middle East from developing nuclear weapons in response.

[rjzzleep]

Guess which country shut down Taiwans nuclear program.

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation.

If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.

[gman83]

China broke promises about "One country, two systems" in Hong Kong, so I don't think Taiwan can count on any promises made there either.

[SV_BubbleTime]

I old enough remember morons celebrating Taiwan’s “independence” from England. Yea… about that though. Thing everyone logical knew would happen, happened.

[dev1ycan]

They've said so as much that they plan to give it a similar to hong kong style government if they wilingly join, and from the latest trump Q&A it almost confirms that once America has TSMC fabs running in their country they won't care to protect Taiwan.

Being a realist Taiwan joining China willingly under those conditions before they basically technology transfer to America and make themselves worth much less (In China's eye), is their best bet, or I would say if ASML wasn't a thing.

Sadly for Taiwan they are between a sword and a wall, ASML is required for them to continue innovating, if they were to annex themselves to China they would lose access to EUV and High NA EUV and basically lose their ability to produce sub 5nm semiconductors no matter how talented they are, and I don't think that SMEE in China is close to EUV let alone High NA EUV.

I understand this comment will upset some people but I tried to be a realist about what would happen if things were to hit the fan

[abrookewood]

A Hong-Kong style government doesn't mean as much as it used to.

[justahuman74]

TSMC is 100% ruined if they join China, it is the end of it process competitiveness.

[re-thc]

> If I were China

I wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan (despite what they say out loud).

It's currently:

- the best place to show military might (the "drills")

- the best place to continue a proxy war with the US / EU

- replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business

[roenxi]

China is huge, huge things don't do subtlety well over any long timeframe. It is hard enough to get people to do move in sync with clear communications, let alone when there are confusing signals.

If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.

[justahuman74]

It's not just expense, it's generalized threat aversion.

Even if China can control the waters around them, they may find them selves boxed in. It doesn't take a lot of sunken cargo ships for operators to refuse to run the boats

[throwaway290]

> replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business

explain?

[re-thc]

> explain?

Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).

There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites.

Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.

A lot of Chinese gangs in Asia used to operate out of Hong Kong. When 1997 happened (i.e. return to China), most of them gave up or moved to other places like Taiwan since China has the death penalty.

[JumpCrisscross]

> wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan

China does. Xi does not. Trump has been the bailout to Xi that China’s wolf warriors and Putin were to America after the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.

[re-thc]

> China does. Xi does not.

At the end of the day the leadership is who makes the decisions. The notion of a "country" does not.

[adastra22]

> If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they...

What authority do you think China has over Taiwan?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what authority do you think China has over Taiwan?

Authority, none. Power, plenty.

[adastra22]

They can try and find out.

[redmajor12]

Taiwan is composed of the refugee losers of the Chinese civil war. That gives them zero legitimacy to continue as anything but a breakaway state occupying a formerly Chinese province.

[tehjoker]

Both countries claim to be one China lol

[adastra22]

This take is ignorant of the last 20 years of Taiwanese politics.

[lurk2]

Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain leverage over supply chains crucial to American national security?

[jopsen]

Subsequent president might realize that America might want allies, and if so they'll attempt to appear reliable.

Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. A future president might want to stop such trends.

[cheema33]

> Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian.

This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.

This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

[lurk2]

> Subsequent president might realize that America might want allies

And to gain those allies they will give them control over these key supply lines so that said allies can dictate America's foreign policy?

[agumonkey]

Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.

[_t9ow]

> extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim

I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.

[bongodongobob]

Bingo, see Foxconn in Wisconsin.

[bruce511]

For Foxconn see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_T...

But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know.

The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.

[Sabinus]

Plus Trump's administration (and his personal direction of the government) is likely weaker in policy and governance skills and experience so it'll be easier for TSMC to get away with stringing them along.

[rurp]

You're being awfully generous thinking this needs to look real for years. If similar big announcements are any guide then the administration will have moved onto some other shiny object in a matter of days or weeks and will never return for any followup.

[jgilias]

1,5 months feels like 2 years these days.

Besides, that rests on the assumption that the US is going to have a “free and fair” election in 2 and 4 years. Trump said loud and clear on the campaign trail that you need to come out and vote for him just this one last time. Won’t need to vote afterwards at all, they’ll fix it.

This seems like one of the promises he’d be really inclined to hold, if he can.

[nomilk]

Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)?

I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).

The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.

[jopsen]

> Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now

In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.

If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.

Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.

[nomilk]

This is both very accurate and very depressing.

'Security guarantee' conjures thoughts of defending a population and its cities from destruction, whereas what it actually means is the opposite: to ensure all items of value are fully destroyed before they're taken.

[jopsen]

Maybe, it's also a good deterrent.

And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for nukes.

[Nathanba]

that's a nonsensically optimistic view given current events. It's far more likely that there is no security guarantee in a treaty form precisely because the US does not intend to help Taiwan.

[_heimdall]

My understanding is that there are currently only three important chip makers, including Intel with all of their issues.

The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters.

For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.

[underdown]

Putin already took the land, it’s not an issue of handing over anything.

[dataflow]

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.

What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.

[PeterStuer]

The US and the EU globalists have outsourced nearly all manufacturing to the east. Waging war on China is basically shooting yourself.

As if you needed more proof, covid hickup disruption of the supply chains were an ample demonstration.

The US gets this, and has now turned towards being less dependant. The EU still doesn't understand, or is willfully blind as an acknowledgement would mean giving up some fantasies they have.

Since the 70's the US' main export has been printed money, 'IP' and war. The first two are worthless if not backed by the threat of the third. Weapons is about the only thing dollars can buy if oil can be traded in other currencies. BRICS is rapidly becoming a contender for a trade platform that they failed to stop.

You can't wage war in the manufacturer you rely on.

This means drastic changes in US policy are needed. This means returning to self sufficiency. This will take time even when you try to speedrun it.

[Shank]

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean

The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.

[roenxi]

We could be plunged back into the horrible era that was ... the 2010s! There wouldn't be a global collapse if TSMC was lost. It'd be an inconvenience that sets the semiconductor industry back a decade or so. Most advanced technology hasn't had time to have an impact on the global economy yet and 98% of people won't notice much in practice if all the TSMC foundries exploded tomorrow. There'd maybe be some shortages while other companies build new foundries - although even then it isn't a given people would care. China seems to be about to flood the market with manufacturing capacity.

[JumpCrisscross]

> whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this

This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.

America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.

[re-thc]

> The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening.

TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).

[agumonkey]

Is this all because US are afraid China will own the world through HPC/AI ?

How many of us really depend on the latest cpu to survive ?

[shipp02]

Intel/Samsung are behind. That is a fact.

The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.

[willvarfar]

The US cannot realistically technically stop missiles raining down on the fabs on Taiwan should China decide to do that.

[jopsen]

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one?

A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.

Similarly, a local conflict could ensure chip facilities in Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.

The US doesn't have to win a hot conflict. Just start a cold war.

I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.

[somenameforme]

I don't think this is quite how it would work. Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, with no realistic means of combating it. And breaking such a blockade would probably be impossible. It's not just that they're a tiny little island right off the coast of China, but the geography of the island itself makes a blockade even more unstoppable. Most of the island is made up of inhospitable mountains, with a sliver of hospitable land mostly on one side, the side that faces China. This [1] is a population density map of Taiwan. China is as little as 80 miles to their West.

And by "free world" I guess you mean the anglosphere, gradually shrinking globalist parts of the EU, and perhaps Japan/South Korea. That's now less than 15% of the global population and declining. Economically BRICS overcame the G7 back in 2018 [2], and the difference has only grown far more stark since. The times have really changed a lot over the past ~20 years. I think the collapse of the USSR was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the US, because it gave us a taste of global hegemony that was never sustainable, yet left us addicted to its fleeting flavor.

[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_of_T...

[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade

As is China in respect of energy.

Beijing knows this. But the timeline on which they become energy self sufficient unfortunately meshes poorly with their military demographics. Of course now, they have former American allies from which to recruit manpower if necessary.

[DeathArrow]

>As is China in respect of energy.

Aren't they buying cheap oil and natural gas from Russia?

[chii]

> blockade China

which is why china is pre-emptively claiming ownership of the south china sea, in an attempt to prevent the ability for any blockades to form in the first place!

While on paper, the US makes "guarantees" about freedom of navigation, this is even less reliable than the toilet paper it is written on.

[DeathArrow]

>A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.

And how will the free world replace goods and raw materials they now buy from China?

Apart from NATO countries all the rest will continue to do business with China. They do not care about the quarells between US, EU and China.

[jopsen]

Probably, maybe, who knows.

If a collective west made transitive trade embargoes, anything could happen.

But yes, the world is growing, and the west is a smaller piece of the pie than we used to be.

[jurip]

> I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.

China only needs to wait for a couple of years for Musk, Trump and Vance to have destroyed any remnants of the alliances, though.

[petesergeant]

> across the ocean

It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.

> engage militarily

This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.

> is any US president

I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.

[DeathArrow]

>The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean

How will they project power? With aircraft carriers? China can destroy those in hours once in close range.

China has more ships than US and 100x shipbuilding capacity.

[petesergeant]

> How will they project power

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16h4gw8/us_militar...

[justahuman74]

A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b

[deagle50]

It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee invasion.

[KoftaBob]

They can ask for Israel's assistance, they managed to (relatively) covertly develop nuclear weapons without a major power getting in their way.

Granted, the US president who was pushing the most for inspections of Israel's Dimona nuclear facility was JFK, who ended up no longer being a problem for them (how very convenient).

[throwaway48476]

Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would not go unnoticed either.

[DeathArrow]

I think US can try to covertly move some hundreds of nuclear missiles in Taiwan and succeed until China notices.

[luthus001]

Yes in theory and that's Taiwan's best bet. But the US would never go along with that because guarding Taiwan's democracy is not the main objective even as it is the main talking point. The main objective is US interests, which are not served by nuclear proliferation or by losing Taiwan as either a bargaining chip to extract concessions, or a chess piece in a proxy war to weaken China, the main rival to US global dominance. Taiwan's value as a bargaining chip or as an acceptable battleground to both sides for a controlled conflict, is unfortunately greater than it's value as a democracy

[araes]

Upvote on this just cause $100,000,000,000 is a ridiculous amount of money. The most advanced lithography machines that have even been advertised cost $380,000,000. Huge number of lithography machines for $100B. [1] And if you're not going for the completely most leading edge lithography, then the price drops incredibly rapidly. $150,000,000 or close rolloff.

Really, personal opinion, yet America and most countries on Earth, should probably be able to get lithography machines cheaper than $380,000,000. However, that's an argument for the lithography industry. At an average Taiwanese salary of $18,000 / yr (NT$50,000 / mnth) that's 21,000 labor years / machine. Even with amortized development that seems like a lot.

[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/asm...

[nthingtohide]

> “Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.

In 1971, Treasury Secretary John Connally famously remarked how the US dollar was "our currency, but your problem," referring to how the US dollar was managed primarily for the US' interests despite it being the currency primarily used in global trade and global finance.

[tootie]

They may also calculate that a big announcement is all he wants and follow through is optional.

[jayd16]

> The US has a protectionist president

We do?

[defrost]

You do, assuming you're a US citizen.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...

or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...

etc.

[bamboozled]

Protectionist: an advocate of the policy of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

The T word...

[cheema33]

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.

US provided security guarantees to Ukraine in 1996, when it signed the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in return.

It appears that US doesn't honor its agreements.

Trump also signed free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in his first term. But trampled on it in his second term.

[pj_mukh]

Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.

[DeathArrow]

>a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.

They still think it's worth more than surrendering now to China.

While US is dependant of Taiwanese fabs, they will intervene if China tries to occupy Taiwan. But US is working towards not relying on Taiwan's fans, so US based security won't last long.

In the end, they'll either have to surrender or build nuclear deterrent fast and unnoticed.

[ein0p]

I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over them, and the country would be much richer than it was.

I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor.

With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding.

Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire.

All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen.

Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.

[fatbird]

Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand.

Zelensky flew to Washington to sign the agreement, and fully expected to--they waited an hour after the blown up press conference before being told to get out. Diplomatically, Zelensky wasn't even badly behaved in the press conference. Vance and Trump kept escalating the discussion. If there was a play, it was one constructed by Trump to give himself a reason to withdraw aid from Ukraine when he clearly wants to side with Putin.

[ein0p]

Watch _the whole_ press conference, the entire 53 minutes, not the carefully selected morsels that CNN prepared for you in order to mislead. Zelensky failed to read the room, and 23 minutes or so into the conversation he started to self-immolate, something Trump and Vance gladly helped him with.

[Hikikomori]

Big self immolate. Said that cease fire agreements wont work because they have evidently not worked so far as Russia keeps breaking them, they need security guarantees like NATO. I guess failing to read the room was not bootlicking enough and not surrendering to Putin as Trump already has.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

I'd watched the whole thing live when it happened. I went back and watched from around 21min in to see what self-immolation you mean.

Sequence of events -

Trump downplays the need for security guarantees. "Security is maybe 2% of the problem, security is the easy part, I'm worried about getting the deal done."

A "reporter" from OAN asks a kiss-ass question that can be summarized as "President Trump, how amazing and courageous are you for negotiating with Putin?"

Trump gives a rambling answer including his usual vague statements of how the war wouldn't have existed if he'd been in power and then starts talking about Hamas for some reason.

There's a moment of levity where Trump says Zelensky's attire is fine.

Zelensky indicates he wants to respond to some of the earlier statements. He says Russia has broken many promises made in past negotiations and this is why security guarantees are actually critical to Ukraine.

"Reading the room" in this situation would mean "buying into the Putin-led narrative currently being peddled by the Trump administration."

Fuck that.

[fatbird]

"Reading the room" meant "prostrating himself and kissing the ring", which might have been worth it if it meant actual guarantees, but it didn't. You said you don't believe there are huge deposits to be exploited, so what then is the value of a US "soft" interest in Ukraine's security? Especially when Trump could make the same deal with Putin so that he wins either way.

No one in that room recognized more than Zelensky that worthlessness of American promises of security. What value then to humiliate oneself? Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal on American promises of security, and look where that got them.

On the contrary, the display in the press conference did do some good for Ukraine. There was an emergency summit in London that weekend where the heads of Europe agreed to step up their support for Ukraine, increase defence spending, and to work towards total independence from the US in 10 years. NATO is now a vestigial treaty that's a foreign policy option rather than a commitment. Who's responsible now for pushing us closer to WW3?

[pj_mukh]

"Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs."

This seems...not true. The Phillipines especially would like a word. Most of China's neighbors are begging for more American Hegemony (America is just not good at it anymore). China's industrial prowess is clear, but it's also true that. China (esp the CCP) has a lot more to lose from a direct confrontation with America. America could lose a president, China will lose a whole regime.

[DeathArrow]

>The Phillipines especially would like a word.

BRICS will support China. Most of the unaligned countries will do the same.

It will be US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Philippines against the rest of the world.

And it's not so much about military might as is about industrial capacity, raw materials and logistics.

[appointment]

The idea that Brazil, South Africa and fucking India would support the PRC against the USA is absurd.

[ein0p]

See the comment above about the intellectual faculties of people who think like you do. We had to hightail out of Afghanistan. What on earth makes you believe that we could win against a peer adversary, let alone do so without a draft or millions of body bags?

[pj_mukh]

America would have to do nothing like invade Mainland China to topple the CCP. War is the authoritarian achilles heel since time immemorial and China knows it (Russia doesn't), otherwise they would've taken Taiwan 10 years ago. China's best case scenario is if it could find a way to take Taiwan like they took Hong Kong, on a technicality and relatively quietly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_Russian_invasion...

P.S: I especially question the mental faculties of someone who can't see other angles to a problem. China's hegemony is the mainstream opinion, it's obvious. Maybe try to question what you're not seeing now.

[shigawire]

>had to hightail out of Afghanistan.

Not really a good comparison. Trying to build a coalition of people who didn't really care vs supporting countries in the region who are highly motivated by their own self interest.

[emptysongglass]

You don't do anything for your argument by insulting people's intellect who don't share your opinion. Cut it out.

[bamboozled]

extortion

[ninetyninenine]

The U.S. frames its deteriorating relationship with China as a fight for “human rights” and “democracy,” but from China’s perspective, that’s just a cover for a larger campaign to contain its rise. The real issue? The U.S. fears losing global dominance and is using trade wars, tech bans, military encirclement, and financial pressure to slow China down.

China doesn’t want direct military conflict—it prefers economic and technological competition. But it sees the U.S. as a declining power that refuses to accept a multipolar world. The U.S. labels China’s economic expansion “debt-trap diplomacy” while ignoring the IMF’s history of predatory loans. It bans Huawei and TikTok under “security concerns” while engaging in mass surveillance itself. It calls China’s South China Sea claims “aggressive” while surrounding China with military bases.

From Beijing’s view, the U.S. preaches rules it doesn’t follow. Human rights? Washington ignores Saudi Arabia but obsesses over Xinjiang. Democracy? The U.S. supports coups when convenient. Free markets? Only when American firms win.

China isn’t looking for war—it’s playing the long game. The U.S. can try to contain it, but economic gravity favors China’s rise. The more Washington pushes, the clearer its real motives become.

But all this stuff is a bluff. China will spill blood for Taiwan, the US will not. When there is a standoff the US will back down and it's Taiwan getting fucked by everybody.

[127]

Given how US threw Ukraine under the bus, I don't think freedom or democracy are anywhere on the US foreign policy agenda.

In fact, even genocide doesn't really move the needle given the Gaza push.

[DeathArrow]

If bad guys do something, it's bad. If good guys do the same thing, it's good.

[dan_quixote]

You would be an excellent author of history books!

[nthingtohide]

Don't you know if people die from airstrikes done by a Democratic country, they go to heaven while they go to hell in case of Dictatorship. It is very common knowledge.

[amelius]

We don't have slave camps with Uyghurs though.

[OsrsNeedsf2P]

You should take a look at for-profit prisons in the US..

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_St...

[ninetyninenine]

Those were the result of public terrorist attacks on China from domestic terrorists to a scale even larger than 9/11. People were slaughtered and those camps are an immune reaction to that slaughter from China. The media hides this from you.

China did an extreme move here. It’s bad. It’s not slave camps but more education camps or indoctrination camps. It’s forced indoctrination into modern society.

The thing with this is that it destroys cultures and eliminates freedoms but it is largely effective in the long run. Terrorist attacks no longer happen. People are not getting slaughtered by terrorist attacks anymore. Part of the question is which evil do you prefer more? There’s no easy answer. But western propaganda paints only one side of the story here.

Arguably there’s less blood on government hands here for China. The resulting war after 9/11 killed far more innocents than the education camps.

And it’s not just this. When you make progress and societal well being putting it as a priority ahead of individual freedoms you get china building an entire network of rail systems in less then a decade when California can’t even build a single high speed rail in 3 decades because it obstructs some nimbys freedom to have a good view.

[amelius]

OK, but I can't help thinking of this quote:

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."

And the US didn't start camps after 9/11.

[ninetyninenine]

Guantanamo bay man. That’s a camp. They tortured people using something called extraordinary rendition.

Civilization is the same everywhere. Utopia can’t exist because of fundamental aspects of human nature.

I think the real difference between the US and China is that the US is sort of delusional. They hide the truth of themselves and live under a mirage of moral idealism while Chinese people are fully aware of the moral issues with their own government.

A good example is you. You’re well aware of Guantanamo bay and extraordinary rendition. Your delusion just prevents you from thinking about it.

[starspangled]

TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either.

China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.

[shellfishgene]

How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline? That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.

[starspangled]

> How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline?

With missiles and submarines presumably.

> That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.

Of course, due to China's military build up around the sea. Due to their being afraid of said blockade. The one they want Taiwan and other disputed islands to help counter.

[AcerbicZero]

Why block the whole thing when all shipping traffic goes through 3 chokepoints and the chinese navy is brown water at best?

[cookiemonsieur]

Exactly. We have a westerner bragging about blocking a 5000 years old country's access to the sea like it's a normal thing and they're not the intruder. Hilarious.

[starspangled]

What are you talking about? You think I'm a westerner bragging about blocking something that isn't even blocked and I'm an intruder?

All I said was that China is terrified of naval blockade, which it is. You're the one being hilarious here.

[JumpCrisscross]

> TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much

We’re in an era of personal politics. Taipei should be angling for prioritising indigenous, cutting-edge chip production to Musk’s xAI.

[heylook]

> Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really.

Thank you for making it so easy to completely ignore the rest of your comment.

[starspangled]

Easy to assume you could only respond with that because you are incapable of providing a coherent response to the quoted point or any of the others.

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

You significantly underestimate the importance of compute superiority for data synthesis for command & control.

[starspangled]

No I don't, and anyway US-aligned semiconductor design and fabrication is still superior to Chinese if TSMC did not exist.

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

TSMC is the only card Taiwan has, hence your argument doesn’t hold water.

But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…

[JumpCrisscross]

> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has

In the way Ukraine’s only card is its mineral wealth, sure.

Taiwan is the Belgium of the American security system. If our guarantees are useless there, they’re useless everywhere and new global security guarantors are needed. If Taiwan falls, moreover, China has unconstrained access to the Pacific. That brings the next conflict closer to American shores. It also threatens American naval power globally given our reliance on Korean and Japanese shipyards.

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

This branch of the discussion stems from my assertion that high-end compute is the enriched uranium of our time. I’m sorry I can’t defend this better. I feel US tech is busy making chatbots and deepfake video generators, and at best fancy overpriced drones like Anduril. This is not the future of warfare.

I have nothing to say about Ukraine. My original root comment is simply that weakening TSMC’s capacity by spreading it to the US is not in the interest of Taiwanese security. But as I responded elsewhere, this is probably just optics.

[nthingtohide]

Why aren't people questioning the Ukraine mineral narrative? Is the news story really solid? We heard similar stories about Afghanistan. Here are some counterpoints. This video points out articles by Bloomberg stating Ukraine has no such relevant mineral reserves.

Ukraine's $500 billion rare earths scam: they don't exist, and we should know better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tILXLxMTmgA

[starspangled]

> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has,

No it isn't.

> But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…

I'm not going anywhere. China would bomb TSMCs factories itself and spend hundreds of times more on an invasion and subsequent sanctions and costs than it spends on funding its own semiconductor development, if it meant it could control Taiwan. Taiwan's cards are that it is a linchpin for air and naval control of the South and East China seas, and that it is protected from invasion by a hundred miles of water and challenging geography. That's why China wants it. That's the card.

Blow up all TSMC's factories on Taiwan tomorrow and relocate its scientists and engineers and you think China would suddenly drop its ambitions to "reunify" and take control of the island? Since its alleged only card was gone?

[GlobalFrog]

My take is that it doesn’t even matter if Taipei has any card: this is not an economical/technological issue, it is an ideological one. China won’t blink an eye to invade if the conditions are right, because they want to unite their country, it is part of their identity. That might happen if anywhere else, there is a land grab. That won’t be Ukraine, because the US are not involved there, but if the US try to follow up on their claims about Greenland or Panama, Taipei is doomed within a month. As Trump is an adept of quid pro quo, that would mean a good deal for him, so the goal is to extract as much value from Taipei before letting them dead in the water.

[re-thc]

> I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this.

It's jumping to conclusion. There aren't even any details in the announcement. It could be old / "mature" tech or a list of other things. The latest nodes likely will still stay in Taiwan.

> US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.

The alternative was a pressure to buy / save Intel. Much worse.

[wodenokoto]

Maybe the Taiwanese scorched factory policy could include overseas plants.

Let’s not forget that Taiwan has a lot of production in China. Foxconn is taiwanese.

[snailmailstare]

Its a total waste to try to quietly appease. If they want something out of the current administration they need to humiliate it and then barely give it enough to save face.

[aiauthoritydev]

This is an announcement to make Trump happy. They are giving him all the good PR he wants.

[tayo42]

I might have believed that a couple weeks ago. Mexico and Canada put a show on for the him about the tarrifs and they're still set to be in place tommrow. Why would anyone else play along now?

[jopsen]

No to mention that NAFTA was renegotiated under Trumps first term.

Still it might be cheaper to just give him worthless wins with no follow thru.

[alienthrowaway]

News headlines in 6 months "Trump announces trillion dollar free-trade deal with Russia" that will be "totally fair" and not "taking advantage of the US" like Canada, Mexico and the EU.

[raincole]

If we give them the doubt of benefit: TSMC is just appeasing Trump and will delay the actual investment as much as possible.

If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.

[jopsen]

> If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.

The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!

It's a classic Russian talking point that Ukraine has no agency. You're making the same argument for Taiwan.

Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like. They could build nukes. They could opt to do nothing and run the risk of invasion.

It's a democracy, Taiwan has agency. Even if, they have good reasons to make friends with the US.

[raincole]

> The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!

Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/01/asia/taiwan-cia-informant...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project

We “destroyed” it inasmuch as we said we won’t be friends if you do this. We didn’t threaten to invade.

America has resisted geopolitical balancing to date because we resisted the temptation of realpolitik. America’s allies are, on average, richer and more peaceful than her enemies. That’s now beginning to change. For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.

[jopsen]

> For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.

During the cold war, there were certainly planners in the west that thought the west would loose a conflict.

So maybe not the first time.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sorry, I should have said post-Cold War. The USSR obviously credibly countered the U.S.

[DeathArrow]

>Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.

US loves Taiwan so much, they won't allow them to build independence and rely less on US provided security.

[luthus001]

A democracy yes but what percentage of Taiwanese media are in the pockets of NED and USAID? That, and the fact "feel good" narratives of idealism sell better than the cold hard reality of power struggles, dominance, control, and backroom dealings. Taiwanese polities suffer from some of the same issues US voters are familiar with - a choice of lesser evil from bad candidates, unaccountability of politicians once elected, polarized media and electorate, etc etc. All great features not bugs from the standpoint of someone (a lot of someones, both Chinese and US interests) seeking to divide and conquer from the outside

[DeathArrow]

>Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like.

Unless its leaders and ruling class are owned by US. It wouldn't be the first time US is directing some puppet governments.

[jopsen]

The west isn't full of US puppet governments. That's just propaganda.

Most of us like the US. And we knowingly elect politicians who will promote a good relationship with the US.

[natch]

Kind of a random fact but speaking of “owned by the US” many of the leaders and ruling class hold US citizenship too.

[swagasaurus-rex]

Taiwan is only reliant on the U.S. because their neighbor threatens them with invasion frequently

[safety1st]

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons

* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements

* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there

* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance

Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)

And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked

[dragonwriter]

> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons

Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.

> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world

It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.

> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.

The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.

But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.

[827a]

Couple notes:

1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".

2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.

9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.

I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.

3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.

No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".

[safety1st]

Regarding your #2, yes you're right; the cost of playing world police was at the top of my mind when I wrote that.

The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.

Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).

[error_logic]

> The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office

Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.

The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.

[safety1st]

Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!

[LPisGood]

It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.

[protocolture]

Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone.

>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world

The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.

>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there

This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.

>Ergo we are looking at another American century

A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.

Let me make a prediction here.

1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.

I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.

[shigawire]

>as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.

Big gamble, especially when we gut the DoE.

[protocolture]

Hoping they lose the capability to maintain those nukes for that very reason.

I mean, they already had to pay to rediscover fogbank once right?

[827a]

Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at.

But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.

Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:

9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.

The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.

[protocolture]

>US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years

Yes but until the trump era, things remained relatively consistent in terms of international relations.

Flipping on and off 25% tariffs (or even the threat of) is going to have a long term effect regardless.

Flipping on and off the level of interest in international norms, is going to have a long term effect.

And its already ratcheted, things are going to be worse this term than Trumps last term. The next MAGA presidents term is going to be worse again.

Just because its not a paved road doesn't mean you aren't going down a hill.

For me however, this might just be the justification we need to close Pine Gap and US access to the joint submarine radio in WA.

[diamondfist25]

Ur delusional to think dems are taking anything

[827a]

All the data available supports the conclusion that the majority of Americans prefer progressive policies. The problem for Democrats in 2024 was the candidate, and thus, turnout.

- Biden won more popular votes in 2020 than any candidate ever (81.2M, versus Trump's 62.9M in 2016 and 77.3M in 2024).

- Trump's second term was the first Republican presidential candidate since Bush's second term, 20 years prior, to win the popular vote; and Bush had 9/11 to campaign on.

- If you discount that you have to go back to his father in 1988 to find a Republican Presidential candidate that won the popular vote. Seriously, again, I cannot stress this enough: Americans prefer progressive policies. We just tend to prefer cults of personality more.

- Many congressional districts swung Republican in 2024 by only four or five figures of votes, and Republicans only gained Congressional majority by a couple seats.

- Its very likely the United States is currently experiencing or will soon experience a recession. Its likely this would have happened with or without Trump, but the person in charge gets the blame, and it'll be very difficult to fight that claim when tariffs have been such a hot topic.

- Its also the case that DOGE's cutting of the Federal workforce has alienated a ton of Trump supporters who worked for the Federal government or related NGOs.

I think this is pretty clear when looking at the administration's actions: They know that they have to move quick on a ton of stuff in these first two years, because they only have two years with Congressional majority. The last two years of Trump's presidency will be a Republican executive branch and Democrat congress, and nothing will get done. Then whatever happens in 2028 will happen; hard to predict that far out.

You can go read my other comments if you think this position is coming from some crazed TDS democratic lunatic; I'm not. I'm generally pretty moderate and understanding of the more complex macroeconomic and sociopolitical context which has influenced Trump's policies. This is just the facts; anyone with money to bet would absolutely be betting that the American left is more pissed than they've ever been, and the blue wave in 2026 is going to be pretty decisive.

[error_logic]

You're underestimating how much the media landscape has changed, and the groundwork being laid even within the states themselves.

[branko_d]

This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA.

But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...

Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.

[WillPostForFood]

Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks.

Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.

[branko_d]

> Can't build chips

True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.

Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.

> can't make ships,

I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.

And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.

> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,

Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.

Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.

> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.

I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

[WillPostForFood]

And how many of tanks was the US able to send to Ukraine? 31

And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.

The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.

[dragonwriter]

> No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US.

GDLS in the US is making new-build M1A2 SEPv3 tanks for Poland and Australia.

[luthus001]

The global reserve currency does that to you. With countries around the world demanding and hoarding dollars for their own trading needs, what domestic industries can compete with the lucrative business of printing pieces of paper in exchange for real, imported goods? That the ultrarich monopolized the spoils of this business, does not make it bad business

[mindslight]

Citizens got left behind because of corrupt government policy that took the gains from cheap imports, centralized them into newly-created money (to make sure inflation still happened), and then dumped most of that new money into cheap loans for the financial industry, driving asset inflation and other financialization. This was the so-called "fiscal responsibility" of the past three+ decades - profligate handouts for the rich.

A sane alternative would have been for the government to spend the surplus on deliberate policy goals such as infrastructure development, preserving the industrial base, scientific research, forward looking renewable energy and less polluting processes, restoring the expectation of full time employment to 40 hours per household, etc. Distorting prices in those sectors in service of deliberate goals would have been much better than making housing unaffordable and calling it progress.

[LPisGood]

The issue with most citizens getting left behind has far less to do with globalization and far more with wealth concentration. The overall wealth in the country greatly increased, but pitiful distribution led to that situation.

[WillPostForFood]

Strongly disagree. If you had a middle class manufacturing job in the US, globalization meant you were competing globally against third world labor. Your job, your industry, left the country. This process contributes to wealth concentration, but wealth concentration isn't creating the problem, globalization is.

[LPisGood]

Globalization created the problem that manufacturing jobs were lost, but the overall wealth of the population still went up.

That means the problem is where the money is.

[no_wizard]

There’s a saying attributed (though may not actually be) to Winston Churchill

Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first

It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.

[foogazi]

> I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate.

You think we’ll still have elections?

[yo_yo_yo-yo]

> You think we’ll still have elections

If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of?

I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.

[appointment]

"US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.

[icegreentea2]

The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.

An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.

[dragonwriter]

> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.

The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.

[icegreentea2]

Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing.

You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.

You need to address the wealth inequality.

And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).

For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).

[shigawire]

>You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.

>You need to address the wealth inequality.

I'd suggest that you solve the former with the latter. The nativist tendencies are stoked by economic insecurity.

[baby_souffle]

The people who have the most to lose from addressing inequality are the people hoping to buy time blaming migrants.

[alienthrowaway]

> ...in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges

They have a plan for that: birth control will be made illegal or access highly curtailed, starting with the "abortive" ones as the foot-in-the-door.

[safety1st]

Both of those concerns are valid, but America's geopolitical rivals have the same problems and are less well positioned to address them than America is.

> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)

I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.

> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.

Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.

[csomar]

While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.

[SecretDreams]

This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least it's written well.

[MattGaiser]

> it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world

Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.

[foogazi]

Interesting that it matches what I see as the flip from rights-based to might makes right world

If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries?

If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ?

If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside

Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?

[dukeyukey]

> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world

If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.

[zmgsabst]

Multipolar world order:

Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.

ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).

We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).

Exciting times!

[nthingtohide]

This is how I view the system in place for past few decades :

I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.

It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.

[safety1st]

A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently

[ants_everywhere]

Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests.

Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies.

This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.

[riehwvfbk]

Any sources for all this?

Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.

The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.

[LPisGood]

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason

I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.

Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.

What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.

[arandomusername]

> Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm

Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line.

> ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment

But that's not the only thing getting sent.

> we would be abandoning an ally

What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.

[LPisGood]

> Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line

Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.

> But that's not the only thing getting sent.

This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.

Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine:

1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence

[ants_everywhere]

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason.

This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory.

Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify.

There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions.

But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.

[tokioyoyo]

US only has 350M population.

[foogazi]

Plenty of room to grow

[tokioyoyo]

Through immigration, which almost every developed country is trying as well?

[foogazi]

Yes!

But who is better at it than the USA ?

[tokioyoyo]

Things change very fast when things cannot be fixed in any other way. I think you underestimate how quickly things reverse one way or another. Look at Japan's foreign residents number YoY, a nation that have actively hated (hates?) foreigners, but understands how we're going to be depended on them for the next decade due to low birth rates.

When every nation fights against each other to prop up their population numbers, immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Think of it as product competition, and consumers are the immigrants that pick what's best for them.

[827a]

I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.

The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.

This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.

But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.

You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.

[hiddencost]

Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine decision. This is not going to work out for you.