nomenym
2d ago
I think Trump sees Russia as an adversary, but not one he wants to start a war with. The US tried to help Ukraine, but at some point you're just throwing good money after bad. I don't think he see Russia as big enough threat to continue risking war, and the US is too exhausted (both financially and morally) playing world policeman for the last 3 decades with little to show for their efforts. The US needs a reset, because it's on the same unsustainable path (financially, demographically, culturally) that Europe is on. For that same reason, Europe is not going to be a reliable ally in the future, and they may even become a different type of adversary than Russia. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but I expect the UK state to fail before I die unless they make big changes very soon; it's likely already too late. It's quite possible that hostile groups will gain access to European nuclear weapons during this time.
I am sure Trump has had many amicable and even friendly relationships with bad people throughout his careers--New York real estate and Hollywood entertainment are full of such people. I get the sense that he personally likes Putin, and that he believes (wrongly or rightly) that he can deal with Putin. I don't think that necessarily means he thinks Putin is a good person, or that Putin's government does good things. I think Trump knows that you can make deals with bad people, and sometimes you have to, and you might even like them even though they're bad. The question is not so much whether they're good or bad so much as whether you can get them to do the things you need them to, and sometimes you can. You may not be able to trust them entirely, but moralistic grandstanding achieves nothing unless you're willing to back it up with gunfire, and he isn't.
nomenym
2d ago
I would not consider the EU a reliable ally in the first place. I actually expect them to be a future enemy regardless of the US's current actions.
Putin cannot be trusted without security guarantees, but I fear Zelensky cannot be trusted with them. Fundamentally, neither side trusts each other or wants to stop fighting, and I completely understand why. Unfortunately for Ukraine, US support is not unconditional or unlimited, and at some point it's just throwing good money after bad. Ukraine gave Russia a bloody nose, and they've made Russia pay dearly for little gain. Russia was expecting a cake walk, and it has been anything but. They will think twice before repeating any such adventurism. For this, Ukraine should certainly be celebrated, but they are outmatched even with material support. They have no path to victory. If anything less than complete withdrawal of Russian forces is unacceptable, then I think Ukraine will lose everything rather than something. Western elites who continue to talk in those terms are fundamentally unserious, incapable, and unwilling to commit the forces necessary to make that happen. These are people who had nothing good to say about Ukraine until Putin invaded, and their stance today is motivated far more from fear and hate of Putin than love of Ukraine. For them, Ukraine is worth sacrificing to preserve their sense of international order. Ironically, Ukraine underestimates their peril, because they're surrounded by enemies on both sides.
nomenym
4d ago
Apparently serious people are now talking about a "Trump-Putin alignment". You would think Trump were actively sending military aid to the Russian frontlines. Ironically, it's European nations who have done more to finance Russia's war because they're dependent on Russian energy. Anything less than complete unconditional and unlimited military aid for Ukraine is interpreted as actually allying against Ukraine and all of Europe.
nomenym
5d ago
I assume they're going to try and sneak it in anyway, so an official stance of DEI zero tolerance is preferable. It'll still happen, but it will be less defensible and more subtle.
I actually think this might be good for Europe. The civilizational decay is really beginning to stink up the place, but there is nothing that focuses the mind quite like a genuine existential threat. Time to man up. Unfortunately, I didn't see much manning up on the faces of Europe's leaders during Vance's speech. I fear that in a few more years the indigenous peoples of Europe will increasingly rather take up arms against their governments than for them.
nomenym
5d ago
I am in the business of starting forest fires so this is of some interest to me.
nomenym
6d ago
My assumption is that, eventually, after demolishing the house full of termites, something will be built to replace it. This assumption may be very mistaken.
nomenym
13d ago
If a peace deal is contingent on both sides agreeing about who started it, then there will be no peace deal. Both sides will doubledown on their stories. I don't think Trump cares who started it, but he is frustrated with Zelenskyy. Total defeat and withdrawal of Russia is unrealistic under the current circumstances, and nobody is willing to escalate further. Some concessions to Russia will be necessary, so might as well begin by conceding that Russia was not entirely at fault for starting the conflict. It doesn't matter whether it's true if it helps make a peace deal easier. At least, that's an alternate reading.
nomenym
1mo ago
It's worth reflecting on the fact that we all almost saw Trump's head explode on live TV. He was right by about 2 inches.
Naziphobia is a major problem, and it really is an irrational fear of Nazis. Not because Nazis aren't rather deplorable, but because it involves seeing Nazis all around, secret Nazis, hidden Nazis, they're everywhere doing their Nazi things. The Nazis communicate with each other using cryptic signs and gestures, so one must be hyperaware and alert at all times for any word or gesture or action that looks or sounds like something a Nazi might do while plausibly denying they're a Nazi. They will not identify as Nazis, and they will deny they are Nazis. In fact, they may claim to hate Nazis, but you can't let them get away with it. You must call the Nazis out, run screaming from the Nazis, band together and then punch the Nazis.
There is nothing particularly unprecedented about this Naziphobia--it has obvious parallels--but it has been getting stronger and stronger my whole life, and it's essentially endorsed as a sensible concern by the mainstream left.
So far as I can tell, the actual MAGA right does not like Nazis. They still consider the Nazis the bad guys of WW2. However, Nazis are not seen as quite so uniquely evil. Communists are at least as evil, and besides many still recognize Satan as the worst evil. MAGA have little interest in emulating Nazis, and they have even less desire to communicate cryptically using Nazi symbolism except as an occasional joke. The idea that they would do such a thing is kind of offensive but mostly just bemusing. It's like accusing them of secretly owning slaves or something.
nomenym
1mo ago
I actually see this working out well for him regardless, because the accusations come across very blue-anon. It's basically the same thing as a fundamentalist Christian raving about the satanic messages their political opponents hide in plain sight.
nomenym
1mo ago
He looks ridiculous and he's a terrible public speaker. It's oddly reassuring.
The question is whether it's false in general and over time. If it works for some people some of the time, but also results in reduced family formation and below replacement birthrates on the whole, then it will be replaced by something else in the long run. Segregation is part of a historical package that could make a comeback.
But it's not weird. Men treating women as having less agency, and also women claiming less responsibility, has been normal throughout human history. Women have more agency and responsibility than children, but less than men. At the same time, exceptions have always been recognized (some women, and even some children, have more agency and responsibility than some men). However, not until the last few decades has anyone tried to reorganize society and culture around the exceptions rather than the norm. This is natural human social behavior. Fundamentally, a woman crying is psychologically (and even physiologically) more like a child crying than a man crying, and that matters more than any ideological principles or even the letter of the law.
My personal preference is for the classical liberal ideal of legal equality but cultural inequality. However, that does not seem to have been a very stable equilibrium. It seems humans as constituted are unable to cope in that kind of world. There is no returning to the past, but the future will not look like the present (if only because birthrates among these cultural groups are unsustainable).
nomenym
1mo ago
Ideologically, I think he's more like Musk shooting for Mars, but Zuck's goal is something more like automated super AI VR future tech. Previously, he thought that allying with Democrats was most conducive to that goal, but that relationship started to sour. His loyalty is with neither side.
nomenym
2mo ago
Independently evolving metapopulation. Still a lot of grey area, but mostly because we can't really measure it very well. Ecological function is often more important anyway for conservation goals.
Well, a core part of the ideology is that they are, axiomatically, on the right side of history. Not just morally, but inevitably. The march of history is in their favor. The future will be progressive, liberal, left-wing, and it's just a matter of waiting for the olds to die to make way for the new utopia. This has been their assumption throughout my whole life. The "modern audience" was prophesied, and they have been preparing for its inexorable arrival. It has only been delayed. The faithful must hold strong and doubledown.
More options
Context Copy link