[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

[arandomusername]

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

Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight.

> 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.

US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited?

Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?

> Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum

Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.

[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.

[foogazi]

> immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them.

Immigrants have always done this, that’s why they emigrate in the first place

[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.