Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators
npr.orgBruce Schneiers thoughts :
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/02/doge-as-a-nat...
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/02/ai-and-civil-...
>> Assuming that anyone in the government still cares.
Schneier hits the mark here.
Government only works at all if people care.
And if you tell someone that their job, and the organisation they work for - are of no value - then those people won't care any more.
I don't know what the outcome would be of large swathes of the government either being fired or not caring any more but we're going to find out and I don't think it will be good.
Or maybe not, maybe Trump and whathisname are right and government really is a complete waste of money. In which case there will be great money savings and the USA will be the better for it.
Any great money savings isn’t going to come from getting rid of personnel. Spending on government employees is only 6.8% of the budget. If they reach their goal of cutting 10%, that’s still less than 1% of the budget. They are going to have to cut Medicare, Social Security and military spending to make a dent.
If you believe Musk wont reach it you are dreaming. Just cutting all funding to all those NGO and those foreign news institutions will do it. In many countries a big chunk of governments workers are bs jobs and are just there to maintain an aging machine look like its working while helping reducing unemployment rate by financing useless jobs.
In the game Civilization, there are different ways to achieve victory, one of which is a Cultural Victory.
A lot of the foreign aid the US does is kind of like this, where we're attempting to shift other countries to our way of life through a mix of direct aid, loans, news, and other methods.
There's a real long term ROI on these things where it's inarguably to the US' benefit that other countries want to speak English, use USD, operate businesses similarly to how we do, etc.
There are a few interesting channels on YT of Africans singing Chinese folk and pop songs. Quite fascinating and a sign of how China has been able to spread influence in Africa through investment. (Of course none of it a free ride)
There a great documentary called Empire of Dust from 2011 that follows Chinese engineers building roads in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2148945/
When it gets mentioned online it mostly seems to be racists suggesting Africans are inferior, partly based on the Chinese engineer's frustration with local customs and graft and labour market.
But I found it quite humanising of both the African and Chinese people featured. The director is Belgian, which controlled the region up until independence 50 years before filming.
I totally agree with you. Except id pin it much less positively than you. The goal is not to help “allies” but to make sure they don’t outcompete us. This is what the money was for. Just like any superpower did (you know the russian interference you all hated)
It's extremely ironic that Musk is the one defunding all the US covert influence programs, which leftists have been complaining about for decades.
Exactly my point. The only explanation possible is that left and right wing only serve one purpose: make sure the empire remains
Without themselves knowing it, or something? I don't get it. At this pace, the empire will crumble pretty soon.
Behold, your budget: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/2023_US_...
You can't cut $2T without cutting at least some "mandatory" spending or your interest payments, because the total of absolutely all your "discretionary" spending comes to a total of $1.7T.
Your "discretionary" spending includes your entire active military. Not the retired military, that's "mandatory" spending, but all your active military.
Your non-military "discretionary" spending is $0.9T, less than half of what people are talking about cutting.
He is going to cost way more in damage dealt than he will save. The goal is not to save money and only fools would think that it is.
That still doesn’t make the math add up. Is saving .68% in federal spending a win especially with the proposed budget causing more deficit spending?
You remove the workers not to save on salary but to save on budget you will allocate to a department. Its like any company. The smaller the dept the smaller the budget and influence.
The math still doesn’t add up.
https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-m...
If you got rid of every department that DOGE is targeting completely, you still only save 8%
Government is a huge ship where everything happens slowly. If you fire all sailors at once, you won't notice the difference immediately. The phantom ship continues to sail.
Then engines start to heat up and fail. And if there's an obstacle along the way, it's game over.
This is a dangerous game played by morons full of hubris.
On June 16 YC organizes an "AI Startup School"; the first speaker is Elon Musk:
https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/ai-startupschool
What a shame.
The good thing about these massive ships is that they take a loong time to sink.
If my guesses are correct, it’ll work just long enough for another administration to take over to deal with the fallout.
> The good thing about these massive ships is that they take a loong time to sink.
Faster than people realise. The CIA was surprised by suddenness and swiftness of the collapse of the USSR — yes, there were other predictions that it would collapse imminently, but such are made of every country and organisation all the time, of those who should have known best (the Russian government on the inside, the CIA on the outside), it was a surprise.
> If my guesses are correct, it’ll work just long enough for another administration to take over to deal with the fallout.
Assuming things have not deteriorated too much by then that it can still be fixed.
Further, if it completely breaks down by then they may get the blame, even though it was not their fault.
This also assumes that an administration with a different philosophy gets in: if things are still "fine", another bunch of GOP deconstructionists could get in and continue things. In addition, DOGE is not about cost-cutting but about ideological purging, and so what's left of the civil service could act to sabotage any 'recovery efforts'.
Just be careful when using analogies. The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months.
> The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months
There was a decade of dysfunction and ossification before the USSR collapsed within a couple months
A decade of low oil prices (affecting exports), high defense spending (increasing deficit), societal unrest due to the resurgence of nationalism, and slowing productivity all happened quietly over the 1980s before catalyzing into collapse.
> decade of low oil prices (affecting exports), high defense spending (increasing deficit), societal unrest due to the resurgence of nationalism, and slowing productivity
Good thing the US hasn't .. oh.
(the oil price is actually OK as is the trade balance, so far, but social cohesion is fraying and people are always complaining about productivity)
Sure, you can tell now when looking back. But at the time, it tremendously surprised everyone, both inside and outside.
The country could have continued like this for years, if not decades, were it not for a few men and coincidental events.
US productivity is going into things like un-avoidable advertisements from your new Jeep when you come to a stop, embedding dark patterns for everything, and spending all R&D on a tool to replace all human workers. A nation can totally be held together heathily under today's 'productivity'.
Many of these things have been happening in the US for the better part of a decade (or longer).
Did the USSR have an entire administration rapidly and deliberately tearing down their government, or was it more of the cracks in the foundation finally giving out?
Just because the former took a decade doesn't mean that this will require the same amount of time.
I guess it could be argued that it had been in the process of sinking for a longer time, but I don't know enough about the history of the USSR to assert that being the case
But that's exactly my point. Nothing happens for decades (apparently!) and then it all crashes in minutes.
I honestly prefer that outcome. At least that’d be a reset instead of this infinite downward cycle.
Such resets are sometimes followed by civil wars, economy crashes style "there is no food for tomorrow" and a generational trauma. As the one who has been through it, be careful what you wish for.
Man to man, you and I both know -- if you've really been there -- that while no one hopes for one many thrive on it. GP may well be one of those.
> I honestly prefer that outcome. At least that’d be a reset instead of this infinite downward cycle.
If the USA gets a repeat of the USSR collapse, you're looking at an independent Texas and California (and perhaps Hawaii?) within a few years, 50% GDP loss, proper hyperinflation, infighting over the nuclear arsenal being under federal authority or the authority of whichever state it happened to be physically in at the time, and a 6-7 year reduction in life expectancy.
Yeah, but Europe will finally realize their big brother is a dysfunctional alcoholic.
That'll show them losers.
Is it a good thing though? It means it takes the same loong time until problems are noticed and reacted upon.
With the right people in place, inspections and preventative maintenance happen
> Government is a huge ship where everything happens slowly. If you fire all sailors at once, you won't notice the difference immediately. The phantom ship continues to sail.
Happens to business too. People don’t realise how long these entities can circle the drain.
I feel like businesses aren't actively trying to dismantle themselves, but rather the decay, due to neglect/hubris/greed/..., builds to a critical mass over time. This administration is actively trying to dismantle as much of the government as fast as possible. I think the fall could happen much faster than people expect.
The Global Reserve Currency status the US Dollar now enjoys, is quite unlikely to survive this Administration.
We in the US are about to take a 50 to 90% drop in our standard of living as a result. 8(
States need Vendettas- to those who wipe them out- we will hunt you and your offspring to the end of the earth. Those who destroy complexity, for all the insane ideology reasons - be they Khemer Rouge, liberal galt grey or nazi brown- if the state recovers and rebuilds, it shall come after all of you, your descendants and your insane inspiration givers.
If Aynn Rands Great great grandniece has to fear for her life over this - so be it. To propagate this self-destructive retardation has to be a curse on all who give in to it. Just because the mine runneth dry and you want to fire up the carrying wood for warmth, does not make it a valid opinion.
>>I don't know what the outcome would be of large swathes of the government either being fired or not caring any more but we're going to find out and I don't think it will be good.
Job security is a big part of why somebody takes up a government job. And it even makes sense. People trade stability for some percentage of extra money they could earn. You are not likely to hire good talent for what government pays.
On the other hand, I can't think of a bigger disaster than running a continent spanning government like you would run a start up.
> Nuclear security is highly specialized, high-pressure work, but it's not particularly well paid, one employee told NPR. Given what's unfolded over the past 24 hours, "why would anybody want to take these jobs?" they asked.
The people who will be hired in those jobs in the future are the ones who can't find any other job, and don't care one way or another. It will be a catastrophe of epic proportions, but hard to notice at first because it happens so slowly. Which makes it all the more dangerous.
I guess the EU should hire them, since they probably need to enhance their nuclear weapon capabilities now.
> I guess the EU should hire them
The EU doesn't have control of defense policy - that is the mandate of individual European states.
The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem.
More critically, public sector hiring is not the same as private sector. Working for a foreign government's NatSec apparatus would be a red flag for any sort of hiring - especially in the domestic nuclear industry in France.
Although your comments are technically correct I think the bigger picture may still make this relevant.
These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII.
> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII
The 1950s is ancient history now.
All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin.
This same incident literally happened last week in the French nuclear industry, where a senior exec was canned because they weren't able to pass background checks due to their familial ties in Russia and past work in the Russian defense space before naturalizing as a French national.
If the US is to be viewed as a threat by EU member states (like a lot of Redditors-turned-HNers argue or imply), then it suffices to say that these states need to view Americans working in NatSec industries as potentially compromised.
So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.
The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)
It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.
But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load.
There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.
It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so.
> increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)
As I wrote below, that is highly unlikely in much of Europe, as most European states (except the UK and France) lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems like ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines.
>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.
They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).
>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems
Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.
I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.
> The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally)
And this is the crux of the issue. It's hubris to assume Europe is our natural ally and should always be our top priority.
In the US, our Pacific allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) are a higher priority than our European ones.
As can be seen in US Military Deployments (the majority of US Armed Forces personnel is deployed in the Pacific) along with economic relations (APAC trade is larger than EU trade)
For the US, China is the primary adversary to worry about, not Russia. Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? At least France and UK have historically tried to maintain some strategic autonomy, and Eastern NATO states like Poland, Romania, and Turkiye have continued to build domestic defense capacity.
And unlike most European countries, our Asian allies (SK, JP, TW) have continued to build fairly competitive domestic defense industries. Japan and South Korea can manufacture their own ballistic missiles, tanks, submarines, airframes, heavy artillery, etc. Only France has a similar diversity of domestic defense R&D and manufacturing capacity in Europe.
> more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).
It's Europe that gets the peace dividend. Not the US. We still need to the capacity to fight a two continent war. That's a bum deal.
> I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset.
Europe as a continent, sure. But in reality, it's a number of individuals states working on their own domestic production, procurement, and supporting their domestic champions.
France will continue to protect Thales Group, Arianne Group, Dassault Group, etc, just like how Germany continues to back Rheinmetall, ThysennKrupp, Eurofighter, etc.
There is no ability to unify production and procurement without also undermining domestic industries and jobs.
France's Ariane Group will never transfer their Medium Range Ballistic Missiles technology to a German company - they don't want to help a potential competitor.
This same thing happened with the Eurofighter project, with France deciding to back Dassault instead.
>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe?
Well, it agreed to:
>In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
I don't necessarily disgree with the central thesis of your comment and your perspectices, but i think there is a more fruitful balance to be had than what i see as completee capitulation to Russia and the abandonment of Europe (after almost a century of collaboration and investment).
At some point one need to ask oneself: what am i defending?
I agree that we in the US need to continue defending the Budapest Memorandum and helping Ukraine where possible.
That said, individual European nations have had over a decade to re-arm and further help Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion), but it ended up primarily being US, UK, Canada, and Turkiye providing support and training for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
European states are starting to step up, but using Trump as a punching bag to distract from the very real issue of Central Europe's pigheaded lack of preparedness is foolish.
We are starting to see these changes now with Starmer and Macron's announcements, but plenty of individual European states are not viewing this crisis seriously enough, as Poland's Donald Tusk pointed out today [0]
[0] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...
Donald Tusk also said today there is no option of sending Polands army to Ukraine because "Polish army is for defending Poland borders", its like he forgot what happened in 1939 :|
Appears to be because of Kaliningrad Oblast and Belarus:
"Poland simply doesn’t have the additional capacity to send troops to Ukraine,” said a senior Polish official who spoke on condition of anonymity, noting the country has long borders with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and Russia-allied Belarus, which need to be reinforced with Polish forces. “The French are far away so they can send soldiers to Ukraine; we’re close so we cannot.” [0]
The biggest hurdle that caused the current emergency talks to fail appears to be Germany and Scandinavia (as usual).
[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-...
Agreed
We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.
It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.
> NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.
There's no such thing as NATO expansionism. Eastern Europe became dead set on joining NATO after seeing the destruction of Russian democracy by the remnants of the Soviet security-military complex. They correctly predicted that Russia would degenerate into an authoritarian dictatorship that would turn outwardly expansionist after KGB hardliners consolidated power and crushed all internal dissent.
Eastern Europe's entry into NATO is like townsfolk signing up for neighborhood watch after seeing the social order break down in the next town and fearing that criminality will spill over into their own community. The criminals, of course, are disturbed that people are setting up security cameras and looking out for each other. Breaking into houses would be much easier in a town where everyone keeps to themselves.
Eastern Europe managed to break free of Russian military occupation only in 1994. Criminal gangs had taken over our town by force at the end of WWII and prevented us from living normal lives for half a century. Now, the same criminals demand that we dismantle cameras, fire security guards, and stop cooperation amoung ourselves because "neighborhood watch expansionism" violates their "interests." Damn right it does.
>Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China?
I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.
NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.
If we are defeated by China or Russia, it will have been because of decades of political malfeasance and hollowing out of our industrial base.
>I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything
Half of the European countries now are anti-democratic, and actively work against the will of their own people. As for "rules-based order" I think we are just the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry. Don't kid yourself. Our governments have been up to a lot of nefarious things around the world. We don't have a clear moral high ground as the propagandists would have you think. But we're stuck in our own countries for better or worse. We have to do what we can to straighten things out.
> inevitable war with China
Never a better time to throw your allies under the bus.
If our allies can't defend themselves despite being wealthier than their enemies and having more people than we do, we are literally worse off than being on our own without such allies. There's nothing wrong with asking them to pull their own weight at minimum.
> I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing
I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities.
France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent.
Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.
Note that "US as a threat" was a strawman argument.
(Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.)
It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity.
(And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.)
Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have?
Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
Ukraine had weapons systems that it could not operate due to them being locked down by USSR leadership. So their choices were really to give them up, or begin reverse engineering and risk getting invaded by parties that didn't want them to have those weapons.
>Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
We can't afford it. Most of the Western countries that have it can't actually afford it either. The US and the rest of the West are only rich in a very narrow sense, in that they get to borrow more than anyone else. Manufacturing has left, and everyone is running a trade deficit. It's time to turn all that around before our countries become 100% dependent on imports and unable to defend themselves.
Yes, but France and UK has working nuclear weapons, my point is that it may give protection to build on them especially when their previous ally leaves the space.
AFAIK USA pays more for healthcare per capita per person. It is not about economy, but political will. (And I did not bring up this argument).
One thing that can be criticised though is low retirement age in southern Europe. But whenever that question is brought up (Macron has bet much of his political future on it), the JD Vance friends from the far right wakes up and start wild protest and collecting votes against (yellow vests, AFD).
I don't think we disagree that Europe has been naive in trusting both USA and the current world order with free global trade.
But that also gives them the freedom to act.
Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.
> Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements
Yep, but as I mentioned below, that's not enough anymore.
Just about every major nuclear power (US, Russia, China, India, Israel) has a nuclear triad and second strike capabilities.
Just having nuclear weapons doesn't unlock that capability overnight.
> Maybe that will change. Germany certianly has capability to manufacture nuclear armements. The UK may rejoin if the situation gets dire enough.
Given the politics here, I don't see that happening. No nuclear reactors, even.
I won't be too surprised if Finland gets some, but I don't really know the full politics of the area, only that they have reactors and are concerned about Russia.
Poland might, but no earlier than 2030.
In Europe but not in the EU, Ukraine… entirely depends on if they think they have nothing left to lose. If it looks like Trump will sell them out and they don't think anyone else will pick up enough slack to keep them independent of Moscow, they may rush a development program.
I can easily believe that Ukraine would try to hire any of these workers. No reason to think any of these workers would be interested, but I can see Ukraine trying.
> The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem.
The UK has US-derived (?) nuclear weapons, and so it would perhaps make sense for them to hire the Americans that maintained them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...
Given the 'waffling' of Trump on NATO support, Poland may want to develop their own.
Also South Korea and Japan may want to ramp up their own native infrastructure given the waffling of US Pacific support.
> The UK
Not in the EU.
And the same NatSec requirements hold.
> Poland may want to develop their own.
A nuclear shield is useless without second or third strike capabilities - which requires a nuclear triad - as both Russia and China have developed those capabilities due to their rivalry with the US.
Poland hypothetically building 10 nuclear devices does nothing if Russia can launch multiple strike after getting striked.
Furthermore, developing nuclear weapons is causus belli enough to justify a hot war for China or Russia, nor does it actually prevent war as can be seen with the Kargil War.
More critically, nuclear programs are expensive and that money is better used in further building out conventional military capabilities, as can be seen with the Russia-Ukraine War, where a country with an ossified MIC (Ukraine) is able to cause significant pain to a nuclear power.
Tl;dr - Nuclear weapons alone are useless in a world where most Nuclear Powers (US, Russia, China, India, Israel) have a nuclear triad and multi-strike capabilities.
> Also South Korea and Japan may
The Indo-Pac theatre is different from the European theatre, as there is bipartisan support to prioritize Asian defense over European defense.
Furthermore, in a situation where American support is reduced, Asian countries can continue to retain conventional warfighting capabilities. This is because defense spending across Asia had always been high since the early-mid 2010 standoffs, so there hasn't been the same level of angst that much of Central Europe has.
Furthermore, Korean and Japanese military exports are extremely competitive, with Indonesia, Vietnam, and Philippines all closely aligning with SK and JP on defense posture.
Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. They are meant to prevent invasion attempts.
For instance, between China and its own nuke North Korea is guaranteed not to be invaded by the US.
Likewise, Israel is guaranteed that Arab countries or Iran won't try to invade it.
In fact, that's why France developed its own nukes, in addition to making sure they'll keep a seat at the "adults table".
Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border.
> Poland might be/have been another good example. They would only need to guarantee that St Petersburg, Moscow, and Minsk would be vaporised in case of invasion to be safe on their Eastern border
As I mentioned above, the fear of vaporization goes away if you can continue to keep striking after being striked. If you've reached the point where you are launching nuclear strikes, you accept the massive toll that you will have to pay with a launch, and wish to enact as severe a toll as possible. To do that you need second strike and nuclear triad capabilities.
Every single one of the countries you mentioned has second strike capabilities and either has Nuclear Triad capabilities (China, US, Israel) or is working to implement them (France, North Korea).
A country like Poland or Germany is too late in the game to build second strike or nuclear triad capabilities, and even starting a nuclear weapons program would be causus belli enough in the short-to-medium term for a war while being unable to prevent a strike.
No,the fear does not go away. The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped. Whether they can possibly ultimately "win" because irrelevant if it is a pyrrhic victory and/or cost is to high.
> The point is that Russia isn't even going to try if they know their main cities are going to be wiped
And my argument is if you as a state are seriously consider a nuclear strike, you have accepted that millions will die, but it's better to completely wipe out the other opponent. No amount of rationalization can resolve that level of existential threat. Poland saying "we can threaten to nuke Moscow" is enough of a justification for Russia to view Poland as an existential threat to wipe off the map.
Large countries, and especially large nuclear powers, have multiple cities where industries are distributed. This remains true in Russia, as most of their military manufacturing capabilities remain spread out across Omsk, Kazan, Novosibirsk, etc.
If you wish to scare a country from fighting a war with you, even conventional capabilities are enough to highlight the pain while also not reaching the threshold where a conflict becomes existential.
So no, it does not make sense for Poland or Germany to develop nuclear capabilities so late in modern world.
France can nuke Moscow and is still there, North Korea caan nuke Seoul and Tokyo and is still there.. once you have credible nukes you can't be wiped out, that's the point of having them.
There is no being 'late', either. It's about the threats.
I have never implied that Poland should develop nuclear weapons. I wrote that they are/were in the very situation in which nuclear weapons may be desirable (similar to France, Israel, North Korea). Relatively small countries have nukes simply to make any attempt at invasion not worth it even if everyone knows they can't "win" against the USSR/Russia/the US, anyway.
> France can nuke Moscow and is still there
They have second strike capabilties and a nuclear triad
> North Korea caan nuke Seoul and Tokyo and is still there
They have second strike capabilities and are working on nuclear triad capabilities
> I wrote that they are/were in the very situation in which nuclear weapons may be desirable
But unlike the nations listed above, they do NOT have a domestic ballistic missiles program, and that would take decades to build.
SK and Japan both have had domestic ballistic missile development and submarine development capabilities for decades, and that's why if they wished to become a nuclear power, they could do so very quickly.
Poland and Germany does not.
> Relatively small countries have nukes simply to make any attempt at invasion not worth it even if everyone knows they can't "win" against the USSR/Russia/the US, anyway
You can't make nukes (and the associated delivery systems) overnight. It takes decades to build the entire ecosystem.
Just having a nuclear bomb isn't enough if you lack the ability to develop and manufacture ballistic missles or submarines domestically.
Furthermore, as was seen in the Kargil War in 1999, nuclear weapons can fail as a deterrence for war.
Russia is not the USSR. In practice, Russia is Moscow and St Petersburg. Pose a credible threat to those cities and be set. Because Poland and Russia are so close geographically, plausible second strike capability can be achieved many ways without having ICBMs and nuclear strike subs.
If you're at the point where you're actively considering nuclear strikes, you are fine with accepting the MASSIVE costs that arise.
Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated.
> Russia is not the USSR
It's not the USSR, but it's still a large country, and much of the defense industry has remained in Siberia since WW2.
I'd focus on your previous point about second-strike capabilities.
> Even if Moscow or St Petersburg are completely wiped off the map, Novosibirsk, Kazan, Omsk, etc will remain while much of Poland is irradiated.
Yes, but the goal isn't to win a first strike, it's MAD to prevent the other side doing that.
Russia has enough warheads to not just level Poland's cities, but every settlement and forest in the country.
Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.
This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)
> Poland with 10 credible nuclear weapons is enough to break the economic back of any country who attacks, so they won't attack.
If you are in a situation where you are even seriously considering a nuclear strike, that means you are viewing a threat as existential, which completely undermines the economic argument.
> This needs what you said before, second-strike capability. Either that or a fast enough response time that they can launch while hostile missiles are still inbound. (Or does that still count as second-strike?)
Absolutely, but the issue is that this takes A LOT of time to build and implement, and a country like Poland or Germany cannot build that kind of capability overnight. Yet a nuclear program can be viewed as an existential threat that can be used as a causus belli for war (conventional or nuclear).
This is a pretty bad RoI.
Nuclear programs are expensive, and instead of spending the amount you would need to build a nuclear program, it's much better for Poland and Germany to double down and concentrate on conventional war capabilities such as rocket systems, drones, artillery, and heavy weapons. The fact that a country with an ossified MIC like Ukraine is able to bog down a military like Russia's with conventional capabilities is proof enough that doubling down on building conventional war-fighting capabilities is enough to cause severe pain on an aggressor while not turning a conflict into an existential one which justifies nuclear warfare.
And this is why you never hear Polish or German military leadership talk about developing a nuclear program.
> If you are in a situation where you are even seriously considering a nuclear strike, that means you are viewing a threat as existential, which completely undermines the economic argument.
No, because it's not symmetric.
Party A may be an existential threat to party B, party B can prevent that existential threat just by being sufficiently painful. B doesn't even have to be close to an existential threat to A for it to be painful enough to reconsider.
That's how bees keep humans away from hives. Also how the Irish kicked my great-grandparents generation out of controlling Ireland, even at the height of the British empire.
> Nuclear programs are expensive, and instead of spending the amount you would need to build a nuclear program, it's much better for Poland and Germany to double down and concentrate on conventional war capabilities such as rocket systems, drones, artillery, and heavy weapons. The fact that a country with an ossified MIC like Ukraine is able to bog down a military like Russia's with conventional capabilities is proof enough that doubling down on building conventional war-fighting capabilities is enough to cause severe pain on an aggressor while not turning a conflict into an existential one which justifies nuclear warfare.
Yes, they are expensive. Also, I expect a multi-polar nuclear arms race to go hot much more easily, to normalise their use, to generally be bad for everyone.
So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers). On the other, there's clearly a constant undercurrent of "let's not give too much more aid to Ukraine just in case the Russian nukes actually work", so I don't think it's seen that way.
> German military leadership
Given the local attitudes towards even nuclear reactors, I think it's just a political non-starter around here. (I'll have to wait and see if @TeMPOraL sees this and responds regarding Poland's politics?)
> So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers)
Yep. I'm basing my stance on Poland's current defense strategy [0][1].
Furthermore, Poland's on track to outcompete Russia in rocket artillery and tanks, so it has day 1 capabilities that are comparable to a tactical nuclear strike minus the cost.
> No, because it's not symmetric
Yep. It isn't symmetric, but it doesn't matter, because crossing the nuclear launch threshold is enough to justify retaliatory strikes and counter-strikes - which is something a state which lacks a second strike or nuclear triad cannot deter against.
And the Kargil War in 1999 was proof enough that two states having nuclear weapons capabilities alone cannot deter a war.
[0] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2020.1...
[1] - https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--m...
It's not existenial if you don't have anyone on the other side of the "deal" to offer nuclear strikes in return. So far, it's been the US, but that doesn't seem assured for the future anymore.
It takes decades to build credible second strike or nuclear triad capabilities. A conventional war would be finished well before that.
For example, to launch into Russia, Poland and Germany would need Tactical, SR, MR, and LR Ballistic Missiles, but neither state has a ballistic missiles program so they would need to start from scratch or be entirely dependent on France (which the defense industry in both states have lobbied against).
If a Poland or Germany attempts to begin a nuclear weapons program, that is reason enough for a belligerent nation like Russia to start a war.
If you are as close neighbours as Poland and Russia, you get first and second strike "for free".
Launch 3000 drones at once and let one in a thousand carry a nuke.
Not having nukes didn't protect Georgia or Ukraine from war and invasion. This is just more "let's not provoke them". Well, that doesn't work very well, does it? It's time someone pushed back and called their bluff. Because if it's not a bluff we are screwed anyway. In this case, the only way to not lose is to play.
Plus some spies. It's an absolutely ideal time to turn up as a spy with a suitably right-wing Twitter account and blag your way into Federal offices.
Sounds like the jobs probably already had people who can't find any other job and don't especially care, if you ask me. At least that makes as much sense as your argument about future hires.
I’m sure some Russian or Chinese immigrants will be only too happy to take these positions for peanuts.
Which isn’t something the he is worried about given how buddy buddy he is with their respective leaders.
The Presidential Pardon being the underlying legal basis of everything. With that power, everything is legal.
Yup. Basically that and the president being the executor of laws and having a standing army that he is chief of … effectively makes him a king. Especially since Congress is bought and paid for and won’t impeach him.
Dictator. Kings have to abide by the law of parliment.
US newqs outlets seem to be afraid to call him a dictator. Maybe a king is more palateable.
I'm putting this one on the voter, not Congress.
As dumb as it is, Trump ran on these policies and is delivering.
No electoral mandate can make illegal actions legal, or abrogate the law. The refusal of the congressional majority to enforce their authority under article 1 is what is causing this constitutional crisis.
(Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto.)
I don't want to let the voters off the hook, but continuous, ongoing responsibility for this unfolding economic and political disaster lies with the people who hold institutional authority, and are refusing to use it to comply with the law as it stands.
I agree that the actions are unconstitutional. A House acting constitutionally would impeach, and a Senate acting constitutionally would convict.
I also agree that Congress is self-serving and corrupt.
The part I disgreed with in my earlier comment was specifically the link between Congress's corruption and their inaction.
For 8+ years the left has been putting forward comments like "if only republican voters knew ..." This far in, I think the simpler explanation is that they do know, and approve of Trump doing it.
>Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto.
Where do you think Project 2025 came from? Trump may not have run on the specific, enumerated list of items in the Project 2025 agenda, but everything in that agenda falls in line with Trumpist goals and right-wing Republican ideals, and it had deep connections with the Republican Party establishment and Trump's own network. It was published by the same group that selected Trump's Supreme Court nominees. It didn't simply emerge from the aether.
The narrative that "this isn't what Trump voters voted for" is being pushed hard right now for understandable reasons. That may be true in some cases, but it's also true that this is exactly what a lot of Trump voters voted for. At worst, they simply didn't expect the consequences of their actions to affect them, but they knew what they wanted to happen to everyone else.
To take Trump at his word that hes not affiliated with with the folks behind Project 2025 is to be willfully ignorant. Many of his team were involved in the drafting of those proposals.
Do we think for one second he has any grand vision about governing? Hahaha. Nope. That he outsourced to the heritage foundation. TikTok? He was originally saying it’s a Chinese spy app and it should be sold to US interests or banned. Then he gets tens of millions (hundreds?) in campaign contributions and thinks it’s benign.
He can be bought. And that’s bad. Because many of our enemies have deep pockets. And many of his voters are willfully ignorant to all his and his administration’s flaws.
Look, I'm aware that he's a liar and his track record from his first term should have made that pretty apparent to the voters at large. I'm just saying that the idea that "people voted for this" and therefore he has some kind of mandate for the current agenda is dumb when he explicitly said his policy was something else.
You're right. I distinctly remembered hearing about all that DOGE nonsense a long time ago, but I checked my sources and I can only spot stuff after the election.
I'm not defending the premise that Trump has a mandate at all - I don't even believe in the concept of a "mandate" in that context, it's just propaganda.
I'm arguing against the premise that Trump publicly denouncing Project 2025 really means no one who voted for him saw any of this coming.
> As dumb as it is, Trump ran on these policies and is delivering.
90% of the voting public pays little attention to policy (not saying this is a good thing).
A good portion of people that voted for Trump voted for him because he promised to hurt Those People. And just like Trump 1.0, it's going to end up hurting them as well (per /r/LeopardsAteMyFace):
> “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/flo...
They also voted in a republican majority many of whom parroted the same talking points the Donald spouted
> With that power, everything is legal.
Although I agree, here I disagree.
In general, the Executive branch, the Intelligence Community, Congress, the Courts, the Populace are all responsible for keeping the President's Office accountable, both officially and extra-officially. Officially, via legal and direct means. Extra-officially, by means of protest, mounting cultural as well as mediatic pressure, etc.
In our, as Trump's actions have greatly affected the international community as well, situation what's most concerning is the initial, slow but eventually complete and absolute breakdown of public discourse.
Truth is irrelevant, poise is impractical, facts are an obstacle, outrage and drama are the new assertive communication. It's all about Me and My Emotions, us versus them.
This has been the case increasingly, for years, on both sides of the political aisle. Everyone compartmentalizes everyone into the sub-groups they are a part of, until everyone is so compartmentalized that they are completely alone because there are no similarities left for any common ground whatsoever. Such is the dystopic portrait of a society in complete disarray.
Under those circumstances, everything is legal, simply because there's noone to enforce the commonly agreed upon Rule of Law.
Only clears federal crimes, though. If the states can start pinning stuff on people then Trump only has pressure he can put on, like he's doing with Romania right now to try and help the Tate brothers escape (╯ఠ益ఠ)╯
In nuclear the saying "there's always enough time to do it right the first time" comes to mind. Preventing rework and reducing risk to the safety of the public.
When it comes to the doe there are likely departments that could be trimmed back and interpretations of some laws to the cfr made a little more clear, but since the doe is in charge of everything nuclear it might be good to do a more indepth look at each department instead of a quick and careless wipe.
Currently nuclear power is regulated in a way of "bring me a rock and I'll tell you if it's the right rock, but if it isn't the right rock it will be painful.
Foreign intelligence agencies must pinch themselves right now.
FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States
https://theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-...
From 2014, continuing The Onion's streak of clear eyed reporting
> After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016
> Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans’ deep-seated, seething fury after this election.
Serious case of "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake", I suspect.
Or exercising every exploit they've banked knowing the chances of being caught are now even lower.
Last few decades of what US is doing might be described as heroically snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, in slow motion.
Basically since US was orphaned on the world stage by USSR it gradually falls apart.
Something similar as the USSR might be back in a couple of years, though.
It doesn't really matter. After failed attempt at adopting "terrorism" as new enemy, USA firmly fixated its sights on China in hopes that a strong enemy will help US regain former prosperity.
What Trump currently is doing fits perfectly this goal. Russia is natural, local ally of USA against China, that's what Trump means when he voices hopes for future cooperation between "our great countries". It is further reinforced by plans to sell F35 to India, another natural ally, which means those planes will be copied by Russia as soon as possible.
In all this Europe is just abandoned. USA knows that in conflict against China, Europe is useless as it has no business in making enemy out of China.
What he might be not appreciating sufficiently (because he percieves Europe as weak and restricted by its morals) is that Europe can be motivated to align themselves with China against Russia. While Europe can't (and doesn't want to) threaten China in any way they can offer China a lot. For starters they could start delivering most advanced litography machines, which only they know how to make to China, instead of Taiwan. And they could also internationally recognize China taking into their zone of influnece eastern parts of Russia if China agrees to provide military assistance and suplemental nuclear deterrence in the war of Europe against Russia that's almost inevitably coming.
I think at some point sobering realization will come that evading your responsibility of global hegemon (even if at this point it's only nominal role) and leaving Europe hanging might have severe consequences for Trump's imperial project.
On the one hand, yes.
On the other, please don't over-estimate the competence of the people in charge of Europe (states or EU) — we're still just a bunch of independent sovereign states pootling along quietly doing our own thing with no real hard stressors to force us to select the best of the best as leaders, certainly not a unified cohesive whole.
When it gets to sink-or-swim time, I don't know which way we're going to go. I hope swim, but the US isn't the only one who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — that's something every civilisation in history has suffered from, one time or another.
Yeah. The fact that something makes sense doesn't mean it's significantly more likely to happen. But it could. And I'd say that both Russia and USA are now accidentally hellbent on providing sufficient stressors.
It might, but if so funded by China. (Or maybe you just meant China?)
Department tasked with reigning in bureaucracy finds out where bureaucracy comes from.
Great news for Iran, which might not need to assemble its own nuclear warheads and instead could buy them off some shady salesperson in Bulgaria once they've been pilfered from the US.
I don't know. Has DOGE accessed the nuclear codes yet for a first strike offensive towards Iran yet?
I don't think there are any "nuclear codes". I think they might have been a thing at some point in history since the idea is so pervasive, but in a crisis you'd not want someone to have to figure out some non-trivial password before MAD doctrine can be applied.
Maybe I'm wrong, I know more about field tactics and guerilla warfare than grand strategy.
I remember reading somewhere (atlas obscura, maybe?) that the US military was much more scared of a rogue general launching a nuclear strike than of the USSR starting the war.
So I'm going to assume that there is _some_ kind of code.
This should be fixed to match the article title, but if these jobs are important it seems easy to justify not firing them with 200 characters? "Avoid nuclear war" is only 17, and changing "war" to "meltdowns" only adds another 6.
Has the rest of the democratic world been making plans to reduce reliance on the US since the first Trump administration?
Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
I think it is increasingly clear that Europe, Canada, the UK, and other Western liberal democracies are laying the groundwork for a new strategic direction, one where the United States is no longer viewed as a dependable superpower or a guaranteed partner.
This does not mean the US will be written off entirely, at least not in the foreseeable future. However, the era in which the US could dictate the global agenda, particularly in Europe, appears to be coming to an end. A recent example is the US Vice President’s speech in Germany, followed by meetings with the AfD rather than the German Chancellor - an unmistakable signal that Washington no longer prioritizes its European allies in the same way.
A similar shift may be seen in the area of technology. Reliance on American tech companies and investments is likely to decrease, with governments and businesses seeking alternatives. Even China could play a role in this transition, despite the security risks it presents. Economic growth depends on global trade, and many nations may be unwilling to let US protectionism dictate their technological and economic choices.
It is an unexpected turn, but in hindsight, one we could have seen coming. The transformation of the US Republican Party, coupled with growing public support for politicians who embrace extreme rhetoric, reject objective facts, and show little respect for science or democratic principles, has reshaped the country’s global standing. Many of these figures claim to uphold democracy but, from an outside perspective, promote an increasingly authoritarian vision through their policies and rhetoric.
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to choose their government and shape their society. However, the US has become increasingly unstable and polarized, straying from both common sense and the ideals of a liberal democracy. As this internal turmoil continues, it is no surprise that its traditional allies are beginning to seek a future less dependent on American leadership.
They're sabotaging all their soft power and alliances by themselves so the rest of the world doesn't really have a choice this time:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-tells-eu-it-is-willing-e...
This is the one that really gets me. I can’t tell if Trump understands what he’s doing or not.
It really does feel like this is the end of the US as the dominating super power and world police.
Who wants to buy weapons from the US when you won't get permission to use them to defend themselves?
Who wants to make deals with the US when they will just get torn up and the US will even threaten their allies with economic sanctions and even invasion?
Who in their right mind will lean on the US to protect them, when they're showing how incompetent and unreliable they are?
The answer is obvious.
They'll transition to be an even bigger bully.
Yes, the US is moving towards a Russian-style oligarchy with frightening speed.
Yes the rest of the world has been making plans
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-recedes-nato-scrambles-fi...
Latin American countries are increasing ties to China
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/trump-china-...
Canada is moving toward diversifying its global trade
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/industry-news/u-s-t...
> Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
No Democrat could ever say we need to spend more money on foreign aid, rebuild the CFPB, or do anything that is seen to be spending taxpayer money to help poor people either domestic or abroad.
The Republican Party seems like it will be populist at least for a generation. No traditional Republican could ever win a primary today. Reagan himself would be called a RINO today.
France has spent half a century being like “Look at me, I can offer nuclear umbrella, and also sell modern weapons, who need the crazy US when you can have me”, and is finally hoping to score !
The most obvious one was mostly build to get rid of visa and mastercard (and for a part of the immigrated population, Alipay and other "services" to transfer money externally), it's called the EPI and it has been in the works for a while, but i assure you that if Musk threaten a big enough european company, that shit will be ready in a month at worst.
Yes.
There are many in the US who have a particular strand of thinking. It goes a bit like this:
The US is meddling too much in other country's affairs.
Only a handful of countries actually have agency - US, Russia, China mostly.
All the wars out there are actually proxy wars, because the US is up to no good and interfering with one of the other countries with agency.
It follows that all that is required for global peace is to withdraw US support for foreign adventuring.
America looks after America, Russia looks after (extended) Russia. The more isolationist a country is, the better it is. Hungary is a better friend than the UK because it opposes American adventuring, just like us.
There are other elements of the logic. America interferes abroad for cynical reasons. In Afghanistan, it was the poppies. In Iraq, it was the oil.
They scratched their head a little over Ukraine, but then decided it was for rare earth minerals.
I don't know if it's the end of the US as superpower, but what Musk is doing is destroying US state capacity from within, and what Trump's representatives are doing are destroying US influence abroad. If the goal is ending the US as a superpower, the actions are certainly shaped in a way that look like they're trying to end it.
Yet Canada should be the 51st state, Panama canal should be owned by the US, Greenland should be turned over to the US, Ukraine should just sign over 500B of rare earth mineral rights to US for nothing in return. Its not the end of US meddling, its the start of becoming an outright and corrupt bully without the thin veneer of democratic good guys they've tried to project before.
I actually have been speculating since Trump 1 on whether Europe would eventually join the Chinese block.
On the one side, we (now) have Trump both threatening Europe with the potential of an invasion of Groenland, and explicitly telling Russia that it won't intervene if Putin bombs Europe, so if I were a European leader, I'd be looking for allies.
On the other side, we have China and Europe being the two powers who actually pay a little bit more than lip service to long-term thinking, in particular the future of the planet, while Trump is explicitly saying f*ck to the environment.
Yes, there are countless divergences between China and Europe, in addition to competiton. But we've seen stranger bedfellows.
It's crazy how Trump is making China look like a good partner. At least they would be reliable and predictable to large extent.
The human rights violations and ambitions to grab Taiwan are obviously worrying. Europe may need to give up on the ideal of promoting human rights, democracy and peace, and just be happy to be able to preserve them at home.
> Has the rest of the democratic world been making plans to reduce reliance on the US since the first Trump administration?
Plans were already being drafted before Trump won the election, given his strong polling, but bureaucracy makes things move a little slow. I think it has united EU countries who understand that this over-reliance on the US can be problematic given how quickly policies can shift, and will lead to a stronger EU.
The NATO framework is there and all countries part of it can keep following it to work together even without the US, and regardless of the memes, EU countries have a very advanced arsenal and lots of trained military personnel - with Russia struggling against one country, it's hard to believe they can ever make a move against 27 EU states, especially due to historical bad blood between many of them and Russia, which only serve to amplify the desire to stand up against them.
> Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
I think it's a correction we've been due for a while, especially with the rise in extremist parties in recent years all across the world. Whether things will reseat themselves smoothly or whether we'll be in for a rough ride, it's hard to say.
If the current trend keeps going in the next few years with the US becoming more isolationist, I think it will be almost impossible for them to comeback to being a superpower even with a future president that wants to do a 180, as it takes more than nukes to be a superpower.
My fear is not that Russia and allies will fight a giant land war with all of Europe. It is that Putin will continue moving his lukachenko and viktor orban pieces and acquire new ones through out Europe that will effectively make Europe reliant on russia and in some ways controlled by Russia. They don’t need to own everything to control everything.
This push has been ongoing for year and the success has definitely been less than expected, with Finland and Sweden joining NATO. I think with the Americans stepping back, this will only strengthen ties between EU countries, though there still are issues which have to be solved on the energy sector to reduce reliance on Russia.
People only look at the state of Ukraine and think that because Russia didn't steam roll them things aren't working. I feel like it is quite successful. The previous status quo has been disrupted. America has gone crazy and retreated from Europe. This followed Brexit. And Russia has been successful at stealing Ukrainian resources, for example, Bellingcat was able to track approximately 3 billion dollars in stolen grain sales that Russia sold to places like Egypt. Is that how we want the world to work? You can take what you want by force and then sell it to the highest bidder? And now America pushes for Ukraine to give up lands? Do we believe it's okay to attack your neighbors to steal their stuff? Why is any of this acceptable? It is not a negotiation to say, "what is yours is now mine but I will give back some of it if you stop trying to fight to keep all of it."
But do not underestimate the threat from certain pro-russian political parties in many EU countries. This is not the end of the development, yet.
> the end of the US as a super power
This take will age well and doesn't come from a place of rage. at all.
The headline is "Trump firings cause chaos at agency responsible for America's nuclear weapons"
Imagine if crypto proponents were tasked like this with remaking the monetary systems, without having a real clue why it currently is how it is. It could be interesting and even work, but more likely than not it will just repeat the errors of the past and would be tweaked again and again until it resembles something similar to what it is now, with massive fallout in the meantime.
The irony the eurodollar system already works like decentralized crypto. There is a ledger of assets and liabilities and the international banks keep tabs on each other.
Challenge accepted. Less than 200 characters.
"Man fire, big boom, Trump look bad"
Here is another version but Haiku
Man Fire Big Boom Trump look dumb