Rosencrantz2
1hr ago
To reply to a couple of other points, the bargaining chips they gave away are (1) saying ahead of the negotiations that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions, and (2) saying ahead of the negotiations that NATO membership is off the table. These things may not be achievable but it seems malevolent for the US to say so unilaterally before the negotiations.
And whether Vance's speech was at the level of 1956 ... I admit I don't know the story there. And what I do know as a matter of fact is that Europeans are interpreting what's coming out of the US as seismic shift in US policy. Assuming they don't wind this back, it is shaping up to be a realignment on a scale much bigger (and frankly scarier) than anything in my lifetime, though I guess I wouldn't know about 70 years ago.
Rosencrantz2
1hr ago
That's a wilful misunderstanding of the law invented by the Telegraph – the most extreme case that might fall under the legislation would be people praying in a window visible from the abortion clinic with the intention of influencing the patients. I don't actually agree with the law but it's clearly been made in order to deal with persistent protesters causing upset to patients, not to criminalise what people do in their own heads.
Rosencrantz2
1hr ago
I wondered if you were right and this is the first thing google turned up – protests at military funerals were in fact banned in nine states and twenty others at least considered doing the same. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights
Rosencrantz2
3hr ago
Re military hospitals, I had meant that I can imagine protests being banned outside some sensitive location in the US, especially if they are held repeatedly, are disturbing to the staff and visitors at a vulnerable moment, and are in contradiction of a court order. This is what happened outside a UK abortion centre, and that Vance is furious about. Obviously the same thing wouldn't happen outside a US abortion centre in the current climate, my point is that an equal infringement of freedoms at a different location not so important to christian fundamentalists would not cause any outrage, so if that's true, it's not at actually freedom that is at issue.
A military hospital was just my stab at an example location where the American public might not like to see repeated protests held.
Rosencrantz2
3hr ago
Zelensky also finally broke and criticised Trump back, saying that Trump is in a 'Russian disinformation bubble' (this appears to be simply factual based on Trump's recent Russian propaganda style claims such as that Zelensky has 4% domestic support; there is no source for this and it other polls show over 50% trust him). When the current object of Trump's ire bites back at all, based on past experience, Trump is likely to double down, get vindictive, and may be unable to act constructively, so I predict that, even if it was a negotiation tactic on Trump's part, he will be sucked in emotionally and move even further towards trying to give Russia a sweetheart deal, one neither Ukraine or the EU will be able to accept.
Or maybe there is someone, somewhere in his orbit who'll manage to advise him differently, but we'll see.
Rosencrantz2
4hr ago
From what I can tell the United States is still providing Ukraine with weapons, which means they are actively taking Ukraine's side in the conflict.
I mean, the US is probably paying some DEI consultancy bills still too, but it doesn't say much about the direction of travel or the intended end point.
[A US-Russia alliance] does not seem like a serious possibility to me, and I wonder where you got this idea. I've seen the United States talk about lifting sanctions with Russia, which is not an "alliance" any more than Nordstream constitutes an "alliance" between Germany and Russia. Trump trying to hit the same reset button that Obama, Bush, etc. tried to hit does not mean that the United States is allying with Russia.
Where I got the idea is just listening to the drumbeat of criticism of Ukraine and praise for Russia, and the US's willingness to throw away all the bargaining chips immediately. Has a technical alliance emerged, no. Is it apparent to Europe that they now face a transformed world after 80 years of relative confidence in the US's ideological preferences, yes.
Regarding religious freedoms in Europe, I think that American concerns are pretty much bullshit and an excuse, and that if Trump introduced things like protest exclusion zones outside, I dunno, military hospitals instead of abortion centres (such things were seemingly the thing JD Vance is mainly exercised about at a time of grave geopolitical danger) ... if Trump introduced those then the same people complaining about Europe's restrictions wouldn't bat an eyelid.
Rosencrantz2
10hr ago
It makes sense based on these considerations that the US would reduce funding and expect the EU to step up to help it with a shared aim of containing Russia. That is not what is happening though. Rather the US is actively taking Russia's side in the conflict and ideologically allying itself with an autocracy over (most of) the world's democracies. Europe's minor encroachments on religious freedoms are obviously far more problematic ideologically to the US administration today than any number of assassinations of opponents, state control of media and corruption that happen in Russia. Don't pretend that this change isn't extraordinary and new.
The outcome is now looking like a US-Russia led alliance, with the EU trying to build an army and contain Russia with the hopes the US changes its mind before the conflict expands.
I hear the opinion that Ukraine did not act wisely in courting the west but it's a great players view of the world that doesn't come naturally to me. The people were given freedom and chose the west, you can say they could have collectively seen the geopolitical writing on the wall and gone against all their own preferences to avoid being invaded, but that sounds like victim blaming to me. Democracies cannot act strategically in that manner, it's one of the reasons they need and deserve protecting.
Rosencrantz2
13hr ago
And yet it really seems as though the signals coming from the US administration are 100% favourable to Putin and 100% negative to Ukraine and Europe. "Ukraine shouldn't have started it", Trump says now. How can this music play well at home if home isn't full of Russophiles (and I'm sure you're right, it's not)? I think the extent of the reversal is becoming more exrtreme by the day, to the distress of Europeans, who are beginning to feel not abandoned (which would be one thing), but as if they are being suddenly turned on by a former friend, which is quite another and will go down in history.
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
I'm not too sure what the evidence is for this. Surely, for all we know, less NATO expansion would lead to more invasions, because Russia would not have to worry about making an enemy of other treaty bound countries.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Do American on The Motte feel that the country is generally in favour of breaking from its old European alliances? I am not sure I have got that sense when visiting but I've visited only fairly D-leaning areas in recent years.
From the British/European point of view, one has the sense from current reporting that a significant rebalancing is happening, one that I would characterise as going beyond wanting to reduce American spending on e.g. Ukraine, and towards decisively breaking with European countries out of gut dislike, and beginning instead to form either a US-Russian alliance of sympathies, or if not that, then at least a relationship with Russia that is rhetorically much friendlier than that with Europe. I think the fear is starting to take root in Europe that the US would effectively switch sides in return for Russia granting it mineral rights in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. This heel turn seems unlikely, but things are murky enough that it is worrying people.
I feel that this rebalancing is already working in a way towards achieving stated Trump goals – it certainly is succeeding in restoring Europe's appetite for military spending (underinvestment here is one thing Trump has been consistently right about but European leaders have buried their heads in the sand on, hoping he'd go away). But the current situation re Ukraine is also sending confusing signals, as it had previously seemed as though the US wanted Europe to step up and be part of a solution for Ukraine, whereas currently it seems they actively want to stop Europe from having a role in peace talks. The motive for this appears to be stopping Europe from asking terms of Russia that would delay a solution the US and Russia find jointly satisfactory, though perhaps there is more going on beneath the surface.
I did not have the impression that the American population generally has gone through this kind of Europe->Russia realignment in their hearts, Russians still being a regular foil for the good guys in movies (said movies coming from liberal-leaning Hollywood, sure). I have the impression that moving towards Russia is an aspect of foreign policy that Trump has not built domestic support for. But maybe this is wrong. Maybe the average American now thinks not only "Europe should contribute more to solve their own defence problems", but furthermore, "Europe should get its nose out of international affairs and attempt to help only when it's spoken to. We, Russia and China are in charge now."
I'm writing this without especially detailed knowledge of foreign policy, but I'm more interested here in the emotional calibration of ordinary Americans generally. What outcomes would they accept, what outcomes are they afraid of, who do they feel warm to and who not, and to what extent do they feel entirely insulated from global events, alliances and enmities?
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
Sounds like something Musk said to Trump and he liked enough to tweet.
Rosencrantz2
12d ago
What you're describing sounds more utilitarian than sadistic.
Rosencrantz2
12d ago
I agree with your point on that one as far as Reddit debate goes, I don't see much penetration of this view into Democrat leadership though.
Rosencrantz2
12d ago
Wait, who fired him in the first place if not Musk?
Rosencrantz2
12d ago
That's a very centrist point of view really though because your comment already essentially implies that the right have become hard-hearted and will not refrain even from inhuman acts. What you describe seems symmetrical with the right and left needing each other to prevent borderlessness and lawlessness on one hand, and militarisation and pogroms on the other.
Although I am extremely anti-Trump I appreciate your response to Butler (I really thought a Motte post beginning like yours was going to go in another direction).
Through introspection and observation of left-wing politics, I can also conclude that sure, some sadism is at play. Look at the meme of 'punching a nazi' being something to celebrate and a type of violence that wins you brownie points. (To me this is sadism kept to where it does no harm.)
But I also feel that many on the left are extremely conscious of this tendency and try to temper it. For example I in theory hate Trump and frankly on some level love the idea of him in pain. But when, in practise, an assassination attempt was made on him, I didn't actually enjoy it at all, nor would I have done if it was successful. Instead, I felt the urge to police left wing people celebrating the shooting. But I soon noticed there weren't actually nearly as many of these as I expected. The emotional response was pretty mature.
Okay – it's hard to argue that the left is better at self-policing than the right in general. I don't know if that's a coherent point of view across the whole sweep of history.
But I do think it is true at this particular moment in US discourse. In 2025, we see the right celebrating its worst impulses and relishing trampling on its enemies in what I suspect is a deliberately unplanned way (they could have tried to be 'good managers' of the cuts they are making, but they find it more satisfying to hack at the government they see as their enemy than use a scalpel).
On the other hand, we see the left having effected a peaceful transfer of power that the right could not, at a time when they have already rowed back from the worst excesses of deplatforming and censorship.
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
The distinction should however be turned on his supporters as much as his detractors. If you cannot understand someone's intentions from the meaning of his words, you can never, ever trust him when he claims to be on your side.
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
For sure, sounds like a good idea. Don't know that that would have helped here (he already wasn't engaging with multiple services as I understand it), but nonetheless.
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
Arguing from counterfactuals like this is a bit tricky. I guess it can maybe work to make one reflect, but in this case I don't think my intuitions match yours. It seems to me this crime was massively reported on and is regarded as one of the worst crimes in recent memory – just look at all the papers at the moment. I don't think the exact same crime with a race swap would have been seen as more outrageous or less.
Actually, a killer who stabbed a random immigrant and said he wanted to exterminate all asylum seekers was sentenced just last week and has attracted no press attention at all as far as I am aware: https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/neo-nazi-who-stabbed-victim-twice-jailed-life
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
But how did the state favour him at all? If he was white anglo, and killed kids, and white rioters were targeting asylum seekers and burned down a hotel, the state would obviously have denied that he was an asylum seeker at that point to defuse the riot? Or do you mean if he was white anglo, and immigrant rioters had targeted white people, the state would have called him a terrorist rather than a spree killer (I'm not sure to what end)? Or do you mean that Prevent would have intervened successfully if he was white?
Maybe I'm confused but I realise I actually don't know what you're referring to at all.
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
Completely. People's expectations are high over the elimination of child murder as a risk, and understandably so, but 24-hour surveillance of every 'weird kid at the back of the class' is a tall order.
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
Some observations:
-The many failings prior to the murders took place under the Tory government
-Prevent is an anti-terror team focused on ideological violence not 'lone spree killing' type violence. However Starmer (who has been in office less than a year) has now changed its remit to include lone spree killing as well. Obviously this killer 'fell through the cracks' as they say (code for 'an overworked team didn't want to help because he was outside their remit') but why did the cracks exist? The previous, Tory government, in power throughout the entirety of the killer's young adult life and his encounters with authorities.
-He came from a Christian family.
-The 'terrorist' material he had in his possession was a CIA agent's commentary about Al Qaeda's methods
-I'm aware of no evidence at all he converted to Islam, but we do know that he was very interested in genocides through history, and in violence and revenge against his bullies.
So I am unsure exactly what your point is. Do you want to claim he was actually a Muslim extremist and Al Qaeda operative? Or that he acted partly or primarily in sympathy with Al Qaeda? Perhaps you could help me understand how any of this supports the two-tier characterisation.
Rosencrantz2
27d ago
Dunno about any of this but do you think it's possible he was trolling and did a nazi salute deliberately despite not being a nazi? That is what I'm inclined to believe. I doubt he has any feelings about Jews at all tbh – I think he really cares, however, about the reactions of his nearer-at-hand political enemies, and so would be primarily motivated by creating a reaction from them.
Rosencrantz2
30d ago
But if they kind of like being scammed and experience this interaction with Trump as enjoyable, is it really evil? I would describe it as totally cretinous myself.
I mean another poster just said you didn't ban Westboro Baptist Church and it turns out many states actually did ban protests at funerals, so I'm not even certain if it's true that the US views protests strongly differently than the UK, it just has different values about what deserves banning.
The silent vigil story is true but refers to people doing so intentionally to influence/harrass patients around the clinic, not to people doing it privately in their homes.
More options
Context Copy link