Why are we attacking our allies like this? What have Mexico and Canada done? Or Greenland, Panama, the EU? Why are we aligned with Russia over our allies? Who benefits from this?
The problem with this is that it would at most replace a fraction of income taxes.
My theory is that it's just another lever that's being pulled to centralize power in the executive. The president can pick winners and losers because the power to levy tariffs is surgical, and so individual companies can be targeted if they don't fall in line with the dictator's whims.
Imagine Apple facing 1000% tariffs unless they take down content that's critical of the president. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
>The problem with this is that it would at most replace a fraction of income taxes.
Yeah, but it isn't like they're unaware of this. They're looting the country. If the money gained from the tariffs wont offset the tax cuts, well that must mean we need to cut further, privatize further...
There plan that passed the house is to reduce income tax on households that make over $360000 annually. So we're shifting that burden to consumers who spend a much larger percentage of their income on the goods subject to tariffs? And why tariff our good allies instead of enemies?
It's been the standard, incrementally implemented policy of both parties since the 1980s. The Republicans have been worse about it, but the Democrats hands are far from clean here.
Democrat-leaning foreign policy realists like George Kennan and John Mearsheimer and even liberal economists like Jeff Sachs warned about the likely outcome of these policies 30+ years ago.
These ideas were free for anyone of any party to pick up, but it was easier to ignore the cracks in the liberal internationalist fantasies. So, expect to continue to make incorrect predictions and to face further electoral defeats.
The very impulse to try hide this comment in anger instead of reply rationally is part of why Trump won, and will continue to win no matter how foolish he acts.
His point was that Putin generally lies instrumentally to foreigners and pathologically domestically, whereas the west lies pathologically in both areas:
Here you can see a link from the BBC where Putin admits that of course he was lying about the little green men. Because the lie no longer serves a purpose, it is thrown out. He is a gruesome thug, but he lives on planet earth.
Whereas respectable western foreign policy figures and politicians are still to this day lying about the 75+ coups against democratic governments orchestrated by just the US in the last 120 years
Yeah no. Mearsheimer is an idiot. He bases his premise on his belief that Putin doesn't lie. Even you and Putin admin Putin himself admit Putin is a liar.
Not sure what that has to do with your follow on. I don't base if Putin lies on if America lies, I base it on if Putin lies.
I think a neutral observer would find you so unpersuasive and so illogical that they would naturally take the opposite of whatever views you hold, just for fear of being associated with such tautological and childish rhetoric.
I think people are in denial but don't you think you're answering your question with your question ?
What about Ukraine? No more weapons or intelligence, just as it starting to get even worse for Russia. Hmm how weird?
I can fully imagine a time in the near future where you will see US arms and fighters going to Russia and people will be fine with that because their leader said so.
Which other country would be obsessed with Greenland? Doesn't the US already have a military presence there? Isn't already a US ally ? Odd ?
> [...] just as it starting to get even worse for Russia. Hmm how weird?
Says who? The sources I've read do not suggest things are "starting to get even worse for Russia". It was slowly making gains, albeit at a huge cost. At best it was a stalemate.
eg.
"Amid talk of a ceasefire, Ukraine’s front line is crumbling"
I'm reading the opposite, Ukraine is taking back ground and Russia's Pokrovsk is going backwards. I've also read reports there have been mass surrenders and disobedience in the Russian ranks.
Mostly I follow "Ukraine the latest", I've listened everyday for 3 years and I don't think they lie because I've listened to it through some VERY tough and depressing times for Ukraine. So it's not just one sided.
Denys Davydov is also good, once again very honest guy on Youtube. Also tells it like it is, also reported some very tough times. He is Ukrainian, yes but if you follow him, you will see he is objective.
Those photos of Russians on buildings with flags aren't good indicators of anything, they've been doing that for years now, they ordered to put themselves at risks for those photo ops, they're propaganda.
I can't read the Economist article but I keep seeing Trump saying how dire it is for Ukraine but I believe he is lying and saying that to justify his extortionist behavior towards Ukraine and to force Zelensky into to a deal.
If it was that bad the war would've been over years ago. I think Trump's betrayal will make it pretty bad for them though. Let's see what Europe can come up with.
It also seems like a LOT of Ukraine's success has been from FPV drone usage, they seem to be further ramping that up and also have ramped up production.
> Which other country would be obsessed with Greenland?
China is obsessed with Greenland, which is why the US now is. You can find many articles on China’s interest in Greenland, going back years (before Trump). Some even suggest that China has been looking to get more infrastructure contracts there to control Greenland through debt.
For the US and EU, preventing China’s access to the Arctic is important. But also Greenland happens to have rare earth deposits, which are useful because China is going to hold back supply of various resources like rare earths and titanium.
Isn't mining anything in Greenland bloody hard given the arctic climate ? It kinda has so low population and small economy for a reason & I don't think global warming will measurably help with it.
Already Russia has been sending russians to compete in Texas and other rodeos to pick up anticipated skill sets when the tundra is replaced by rich grasslands.
Mining there has been repeatedly considered. It hadn’t happened mainly due to environmental concerns and politics, not practicality. For example, back in 2021 a left leaning party won elections there and pledged to block mining projects immediately:
The same article mentions that even at that time, a partnership between an Australian company (whose biggest shareholder is a Chinese company) and a Chinese company had already spent $100 million on preparing for a mining project, at this place:
The US would be quite lucky if Russia turned back to a frenemy relationship with NATO. It seems highly unlikely that will happen given the last 15 years of conflict. The attempt to Balkanize and neuter Russia looks like an abject failure. Throwing more arms and Ukrainian youth into that meat grinder is a very cynical way to proceed. Rather than growing closer to Europe via trade and energy interdependence, the strategy in Ukraine and Syria has driven Russia further into alliance with China and Iran. Looks like a mistake in hindsight. Would have been better to cultivate Russia against China and align Russian interests with Europe rather than Beijing.
Before the negative reviews come pouring, consider that the rise of China was the result of exactly this strategy in reverse. At the time "Nixon in China" was an attempt to support a largely agrarian Chinese communist state to give Russia (the stronger competitor) something to worry about on its eastern flank. Strengthening and emboldening the communist "little brother" was a deliberate foreign policy goal during the Cold War. This strategy was what the protean Henry Kissinger was most famous for at the time. Talk about unforeseen consequences. Maybe we bet on the wrong horse. China in 2025 seems like a much more serious global competitor than Russia. Ask yourself, who would you rather compete with?
I mean, the US is also sort of responsible for what happened in Russia too, with the oligarch class being born out of the 'shock therapy' that US-based institutions and economists pushed for...
Russia might be a much more democratic place today if not for the massive economic problems that caused...
That is true and also deliberate US policy to ensure there would never be a strong Russia again. Russia has always loomed large over Europe since probably the Huns. There have been times when the Russian state was Europhilic (e.g., Peter the Great or when the language of the Russian court was French). And times when the Slavic and Eastern impulses have reigned. The claims that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire is probably mostly propaganda. But something can be literally false, but spiritually true. Given its geographic perch across Eurasia, Russia's spiritual destiny may demand Empire or Death. It's an open question whether the Russian Federation can accept a subordinate role on the world stage. They will likely continue to aspire to being a sovereign pole in proposed multipolar world order.
"The claims that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire is probably mostly propaganda" is correct by Putin's own he words. He just wants control of everywhere in the ex-Soviet where Russian speakers live.
You do realize nobody wanted to do that, and Putin's aggressive thuggery is 100% the reason why Russia has been isolated. Cultivating an invader doesn't make sense for anyone.
Its seems you have bought into the Russian propaganda about how they were victimized with NATO. The reality is Russia got everything it needed, its economy was doing comparatively well, its elites were welcome all over Europe. Europe ignored all the shade stuff they continue to do all the time. The Russian elite enriched itself buying all the luxury products of Europe and going to St.Moriz and living in London.
I have only bought into my readings in history. The events I credit are:
- The 1970s opening of China by Nixon and the documented policy goals contra the USSR.
- The waning years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was weakened and falling apart leading to 1989 and the aftermath in Eastern Europe and Russia.
- The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs").
- The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership.
- The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.
- Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war intended to bankrupt the country, isolate it via sanctions, deplete Russia's military, and ultimately, depose achieve regime change to a more pliable Western allied Russian leadership (essentially to do to Russia what was done in Ukraine). The ultimate policy goal being to "balkanize" (weaken) the Russian Federation to achieve Western dominance over Russian policy and resources.
I'm not terribly concerned with whether this was sound policy or not. Or what corrupt "elites" do with their ill-gotten gains. I'm just interested in the facts of history. This doesn't say that Putin is blameless or even a "good leader". Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid. Germans may be the biggest dupes of all in this whole mess. I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children.
That's EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. Literally all of Europe and the US bent over backwards for Russia. German made it one of there central geopolitical missions to integrate Russia. They invaded Georgia and did many other questionable things, then took Crimea and still most countries were willing to basically not upset the Apple cart. So they did 'cultivate' Russia.
Russia always loves to only talk about NATO and how bad it is. But NATO actually helped Russia because it let the Eastern European feel save and that convinced them that economic collaboration with Russia was in their benefit. And it also passivized these countries, making them far less militarist. Without NATO, these countries would have invested far more in conventional defense for the last 30 years and would have refused any Russian integration.
But at some point cultivation goes to far and you can't just forever say 'well we need Russia against China so they can have Ukraine', 'well we need Russia against China so the can have Georgia', 'well we need Russia against China so they can have the Baltics'.
Like at some point 'cultivating' only works if you have a partner on the other side that has even the slightest interest in cooperation. Russia elites care about their own power, and that power is threatened by justice and democracy, not China. They will not switch and view China as their enemy unless China want to start to be an enforcer of democracy or actively take Russian land.
China knows this and is prepared to wait to get back their Russian territory (and maybe more). China is well aware that Russia is a massively declining power, suffering from massive brain-drain, bad demographics, surviving off left over Soviet industry and massive amount of natural resources (that China can already acquire). So China, despite Russia owning a lot of land that China absolutely believes is theirs, will focus on the US because the West, is a much bigger economic, political and ideological competitor.
So the simply reality is, as long as China has major 'Western' allies close to its borders, you will simply not get Russia and China to really go at each other as they did during the Communist competition days. No matter what day dreaming old Cold Wars have about doing the Sino-Soviet split again.
> Throwing more arms and Ukrainian youth into that meat grinder is a very cynical way to proceed.
Its not cynical if the population there actually wants that. This is not a case where Ukraine has some dictator who is doing some vanity invasion of foreign territory. Its not even like Afghanistan. Because in Ukraine you actually have a pontifical system that can be converted into a long time useful ally.
> driven Russia further into alliance with China and Iran
This is always the fear mongering people use. But this has a number of limitations. First, non of these countries actually like each other. Russia and Iran work together but don't like each other. Russia and China are the same. Russia know well that China really wants to own 80% of Russia, even if this isn't their primary focus right now. They will never be true allies as the US is in NATO, its just not happening. Unless maybe where one is a complete client state of the other.
And in terms of commercial relationship, oil and weapons, they are already doing that. Appeasing Russia in Europe doesn't massively pull them away from China and Iran. Sure maybe they sell slightly less oil in that direction, but the relationships aren't effected that much.
At the end of the day, these 3 regimes, have one thing in common, they don't want Western values based system of values and worst of all democracy. So they will always cooperate along that line.
PS:
> The attempt to Balkanize and neuter Russia looks like an abject failure.
Overall, its not except its not a failure at all. Finland, Baltics, Poland and all the others are now well integrated into Europe and will never go back to being Russian in any sense.
Agree that China is playing a long game and has tremendous patience. If I read your argument right, you're saying that it is foolish to think Russia could be "won over" to Europe, that they were always destined to be autocratic, and therefore their "values" are just too opposed to the West to ever be a partner.
Ok, but I don't think Russia has to be a "Western-style" democracy to not be an active ally of China. They have interests like any other sovereign nation. Maybe breaking up the Russian Federation is a bridge too far, but the achievable policy goal is to weaken Russia internally and make it quite inconvenient for Russia to be allied with other US geopolitical rivals. These are, primarily, China, our true superpower rival, and regionally, Iran (Persia), that asserts privileges in the Middle East that threaten US interests. Russia is the one that could be inconvenienced by alliance with either China or Iran. It was inconvenient and costly for Russia to support Iran ally Syria. There are some pipeline interests for Russia there but Syria is more important to Iran than Putin. Instead of making it costly for Russia to support China, we've made it costly for Russia not to support China. The opposite of what is needed to destabilize our rivals.
Look, I like Europe and have spent a lot of time there and have family there, but I care mostly about American prosperity. To the extent that Europe promotes American prosperity, our interests align. But Ukraine is also about disciplining Europe. Europe has shirked its own security obligations to police its European neighborhood. Worse, some European powers (ahem, Germany) have tried to assert independence from US political control by exploiting access to Russian energy and trying to achieve some kind of energy independence from the US. No bueno. Given its history, the calls for Germany to raise an army and invade Eastern Europe in a war for independence sound like a bit of farce, don't you think? Anyway, not going to happen. Europe must remilitarize, but only to a point. They need to spend enough money to carry their share of the burden, but not to achieve political independence.
I would also challenge the coherence of any arguments based on "Western values" and democracy. Those are terms that have many possible meanings, or no meaning at all.
Mostly because the current president likes tariffs and Russia and doesn't seem to like his democratic allies much. But I'm not sure it's of much benefit to the rest of America. Is anyone saying this stuff is a good idea apart from Trump?
It seems obvious to me that Trump is just playing to his supporters, maybe isn't even thinking at all about the consequences. What merit-based argument is there for these tariffs? None - and so the reason for doing this cannot be merit-based. It must be something else, perhaps something emotional. Like, "look at me, I will stand up to anyone for your cause, including Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbours". How that's going to work out for the average American remains to be seen; good luck...
Yes, that’s how these people think. I fundamentally disagree with it and thinks it’s destructive to society, but these people want to watch things get destroyed. This is why they also applaud cuts in welfare and the federal government. Anything that is part of status quo is considered part of the swamp, so it must burn.
Trump was heavily in debt before elected president. He's scammed his way out and is now rich from being president. Him an his billionaire lackeys run the country by edict. They are the swamp.
A lot of authoritarian countries label themselves as governments of the people and their figurehead as a brave warrior leading a permanent revolution against the ruling class.
Even when their figurehead has held onto power for several decades and executes 12 year olds who write "this gov sux LOL" on a bathroom wall for being a dissident, they keep claiming to be leading an uphill fight against some mysterious power above and half the country keeps loving them.
People love an underdog story. Frame yourself as a permanent underdog, even when you're not, and half of nearly any given country will love you. America now has people with hundreds of billions of dollars claiming to be oppressed underdogs. It should be insane. But people believe it. They'll believe it 20 years from now, too.
I distinctly remember listening to Limbaugh make fun of Trump while riding in a truck with my dad in the late ‘90s. Most of my image of the guy up until his run in 2016 actually came from people making fun of what an awful person and terrible businessman he was, and I probably heard more of that from conservatives than liberals, even. Like, he’s obviously a clown with sleazy used car salesman energy. Everybody knew, of course, because it’s so easy to see, and nobody denied it, it was assumed fact any time anyone talked about the guy.
Fast forward a couple decades and he’s god-king of the right. My dad, who also personally told me things about what a shitty person Trump was, back then, loves the guy and thinks he’s good at everything.
Countries don't have friends, they only have interests. Thinking in terms of a kindergarten and not in terms of geopolitics disqualifies you from serious participation.
Geopolitically, it makes even less sense. Ever since the pandemic it became evident near-shore and friend-shore measures are the only way to ensure resilient supply chains.
To put it simply, would you trust more the Europeans/Canadians/Mexicans to keep selling you something you really need, or Iran/China/Russia?
I think people were made to be disgruntled though, it's falsely directed anger. Whether or not that matters is irrelevant for now. From everything I've seen a lot of the anger was misdirected.
If things keep going the way they're going though, you might see some proper revolt sooner or later.
Except for the people who were doing fine with the status quo and just voted for Trump because he triggers the libs. They might have a wake-up call coming.
Isn't EU the ones buying Russian oil and gas? They are paying more for those than they are helping Ukraine. They may kiss and hug Zelensky extra long and do photo ops with him when he visits, but then turn around and fund Putin's war against him.
What are European countries doing to reduce reliance on Russian energy?
The European Union says it has significantly slashed Russian energy exports since the invasion.
The share of Russian gas in EU imports dropped from 45% in 2021 to 18% by June 2024, meaning US exports of gas to the EU has significantly increased.
More recent packages of sanctions have aimed to prevent the Kremlin from circumventing those sanctions.
CREA says tighter sanctions that undercut Russian countermeasures can slash Kremlin revenues by 20% annually, significantly stifling its capacity to fund its war in Ukraine.
> The share of Russian gas in EU imports dropped from 45% in 2021 to 18% by June 2024, meaning US exports of gas to the EU has significantly increased.
Exactly. Isn't it wild? They paid €205 billion to the Russians since the start of the war. Not only that, as you found out, they were paying a lot more in the past! It's like had never noticed he captured Crimea from their neighbor. Not only that US had asked the strengthen their military, spend more on defense, and stop buying Putin's gas and they turned around and did exactly the opposite.
Do you think you Europe can just turn off gas or something ? Like there would be no logistics challenges to replace the supply? Why did Russia continue to supply gas? It wanted the money...
Clearly the European strategy was the one that you probably praise Trump for, trying not to isolate Putin and Russia by buying their gas and using appeasement. They had agreements with Russia that were broken and and have to pivot away from them. Russia was benefiting massively and still broke their promises and broke trust, for what?
So look where appeasement got Europe and Ukraine and it look where it will get Trump and the USA.
Personally, you're argument and history supports the idea that Trump is making a massive mistake with it's new "strategy". Russia only understands force.
Cause it makes them money. Artillery shells cost money.
> Clearly the European strategy was the one that you probably praise Trump for, trying not to isolate Putin and Russia by buying their gas and using appeasement.
I am not praising Trump, sound like your strategy of appeasement of an enemy is to hand them hundreds of billions of euros.
> Russia was benefiting massively and still broke their promises and broke trust, for what?
Exactly. They were fools and now are acting confused Putin took advantage of them, right after they saw him capture Crimea. Moreover, they criticized Americans for telling them not fund a war criminal.
> Personally, you're argument and history supports the idea that Trump is making a massive mistake with it's new "strategy". Russia only understands force.
They only understand force, I agree. I am not sure why you suggest otherwise?
I think people are looking for the photo-op leaders as they conceive stability even though that stability is just a mirage. Trump team is not doing that so it appears like chaos is the rule.
Canada and Mexico are not the US allies. They are okayish neighbors but will stab the US on the back at a moment notice. Between, there was a reportage somewhere on youtube talking about the auto industry and tariffs. Apparently, Canada used tariffs back in the 80s to force the US to build a car industry in Canada.
> I think people are looking for the photo-op leaders as they conceive stability even though that stability is just a mirage.
They are great for photo ops and mighty promises while they are supplying Putin with hundreds of billions of Euros; more than they help Ukraine. And then US told them to increase their defense spending and instead of doing that they they brushed it off as a joke.
It's encouraging to see them pledge more money now, and maybe a plan to build a stronger unified army, though it's not clear why they had to wait three years for it. Or even better, they should have started right after 2014.
You're in a cult. Why would you want to work with the aggressor, who broke his peace vows 27 times? Why wouldn't you work with your closest allies, Canada, Mexico and Europe?
The actions of Donald Trump align USA with Russia over our allies. We recently stopped sharing intel with Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, threatened to withdraw from NATO, insisted Ukraine sign a peace deal giving Russia annexed land, called Zelinski a dictator, etc, you can go on endlessly.
How does anyone not see what is happening.
They want to replace income tax (progressive) with tariffs (regressive).