I'm confused by your post, because if I squint it seems like there are multiple ways to interpret it:
1. User legitimately doesn't know that tariffs are a tax against the importer, meaning parts-importer Tesla might seek a personalized tax-break, and because Musk's buddy Trump is a corrupt crook he might command the government to grant it.
2. User doesn't realize Trump can corruptly give Musk an exception, and furthermore is also asking why Mexico would want to impose a responding tax on their own exporters, just to punish them for making sales to US-Tesla.
3. It's actually all sarcasm in one way or another, but Poe's Law is too strong and pretending to be a Redcap looks like actually being one.
Slightly tangential to the article itself, but quite relevant to the overall vibe of this comment section (and others like it): it seems like a large percentage of the HN community genuinely thinks that we should always do whatever is best for ourselves personally when it comes to politics.
"Voting against their own interests" has been a common refrain around here for the last months/years, usually in reference to Trump supporters and usually in reference to economic interests, as if your own personal economic benefit is the only thing that matters when in the voting booth.
Maybe some people believe in more than just their own economic self-interest? In fact, Benjamin Franklin once said that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." And yet I feel like there are many commenters around here who are effectively encouraging everyone to do that, and/or gleefully experiencing schadenfreude when people don't do that.
Now that I have articulated this though, I realize maybe a community built around a startup accelerator is exactly the place you'd find people that fixate on economic self-interest.
I don't think those examples make any sense in the context of voting for self-interest.
- gerrymandering: voting for someone that will gerrymander is once again voting for your own interests (this time at the expense of democratic values). If the prone-to-gerrymander candidate you are voting for does in fact gerrymander, it is likely to be in favor of that political party (which is the one you voted for).
- Voter ID: I think everyone who wants stronger voter ID laws and is voting for them is not particularly worried about not having an ID when it comes time to vote in the next election.
- Reducing voting stations is an interesting one, but again I think most of the people who would vote for a party that reduces voting stations are not worried about access to them (either because they can easily take time off to vote, they are quite mobile, or because they are happy with mail-in-ballots).
So I think you are helping make my point, but in the opposite direction of how you meant – those are a bunch of examples of people voting selfishly in a way that could hurt democracy. I want people that would vote for such things to vote against their own self-interest, and instead vote for what is best for the health of our democratic republic.
In this case I mean the people adversely affected by the above policies can still find themselves voting for them.
The voterID one for example, people who can vote one election that have otherwise out of date ID will find themselves unable to vote in the next election.
Right, I still don't think that is true. The people voting for Voter ID are not struggling to get a new ID when their old one expires.
Yes, there is no "federal ID" (besides passports and passport cards), but if you've had an ID before, it is not difficult to get a new one in any US state.
I think we have reached a terminus. But I do want to say I appreciate your respectful and straightforward messaging.
What I've described above isn't a theoretical problem, it is an actual occurring issue that has happened time after time.
I don't want to say it's "privileged" but I think you are personally down playing the difficulty these issues raised on specific groups.
If you read the Wikipedia article you will see that minority groups are significantly less likely to have up to date state IDs.
And respectfully anyone without a permanent address can also have a very hard time getting ID.
That point I'm making is that people in these groups will still vote for policies that directly negatively impact their ability to participate in democracy. Not a strawman argument, based on actual voter data.
It could be a part of the larger problem that a decreasing percentage of Americans are even voting at all.
That is the point that you're making, but you kinda need to back it up. I have seen little evidence that people voting for voter ID laws struggle to get IDs, just evidence that some people struggle.
Fact: There are people who will tell you with a straight face how they voted for Trump even though he promised to do things that would harm them because they didn't believe him, that it was campaign rhetoric.
This isn't "I never thought the face-eating leopards would eat my face", this is "I didn't think the face-eating leopards would actually eat faces, I thought it was just a campaign slogan".
Yes, those people are dumb, however it doesn't really affect the main my point of my comment (which was a bit meander-y I admit), which was merely that "voting against your own self-interest" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Norwegian citizens found that they could vote themselves money and it worked out fine. It's almost always a better strategy than voting to give money to oligarchs.
I'd argue that rather than vote themselves money, they voted for sharing the exceedingly plentiful (relative to population) natural resources of their country.
But yes, that does seem to be a version of "vote yourself money" that is far less problematic than other instantiations.
Ironically the result of all the cuts will likely be a reduction in the size of the economy - which can actually lower the tax take too (a portion of the money flowing around the economy comes back in taxes) so the combination of that will likely be an increase in the US's debt to GDP ratio and reduced living standards for most people.
That is not to say that Governments can spend to excess with no consequences of course, but that these indiscriminate cuts are likely going to have the opposite effect as intended.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
If the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional, then Congress surrendering its power to the President to not only impose tariffs unilaterally but then to _exempt_ favored parties from them, is not only blatantly corrupt, but clearly also unconstitutional.
But I'm not holding my breath for sanity from the Originalist Court.
To put a slightly finer point on it, I have described it to my federal legislators[' answering machines] as an on-demand, retroactive, reversible, line-item veto.
More-importantly, what does it mean in a representative democracy, when a majority of legislators reach a "compromise" by passing a bill... and then one side simply violates the laws they just voted for because they don't like those parts? It's the same as making a trade with someone and then they take our a gun and mug you for your wallet.
In short, the federal legislative process died last month, and Republicans murdered it.
It is literally not possible to resurrect it until after Republicans throw away the murder-weapon. The main question now is how long Democrats will be in a state of denial like a battered spouse.
Even if you think that it is constitutional to delegate this power to the executive, it's clearly inconsistent with Biden v. Nebraska, where the supreme court ruled that the executive can't even exercise powers that congress explicitly delegated (when a Democrat is president only, for some reason).
He’s also abusing the way the power’s delegated. He only declared the “fentanyl emergency” because unilateral tariffs are an emergency power. So then he tariffs China more (ok, sure, he doesn’t actually care about the fentanyl thing but fine I guess) and then also… Mexico? Ok they cooperate pretty well when we don’t levy tariffs so seems like that should have been like step fifty if things went poorly, but… I guess? Oh but also Canada, which no sane analysis would judge is relevant to his “fentanyl emergency”, so clearly he’s just full of shit and wanted to seize some power.
I have a feeling that the net flow of contraband across the Canadian border is northward, giving the Canadian Fentanyl Czar the opportunity to clown on Trump by imprisoning Americans.
Oh, come on now, this one’s easy. They can just activate Textualist-mode and say that that if the founders wanted this clause to apply to tariffs then they should have explicitly used the word ‘tariffs’.
Why are we attacking our allies like this? What have Mexico and Canada done? Or Greenland, Panama, the EU? Why are we aligned with Russia over our allies? Who benefits from this?
The problem with this is that it would at most replace a fraction of income taxes.
My theory is that it's just another lever that's being pulled to centralize power in the executive. The president can pick winners and losers because the power to levy tariffs is surgical, and so individual companies can be targeted if they don't fall in line with the dictator's whims.
Imagine Apple facing 1000% tariffs unless they take down content that's critical of the president. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
>The problem with this is that it would at most replace a fraction of income taxes.
Yeah, but it isn't like they're unaware of this. They're looting the country. If the money gained from the tariffs wont offset the tax cuts, well that must mean we need to cut further, privatize further...
There plan that passed the house is to reduce income tax on households that make over $360000 annually. So we're shifting that burden to consumers who spend a much larger percentage of their income on the goods subject to tariffs? And why tariff our good allies instead of enemies?
It's been the standard, incrementally implemented policy of both parties since the 1980s. The Republicans have been worse about it, but the Democrats hands are far from clean here.
Democrat-leaning foreign policy realists like George Kennan and John Mearsheimer and even liberal economists like Jeff Sachs warned about the likely outcome of these policies 30+ years ago.
These ideas were free for anyone of any party to pick up, but it was easier to ignore the cracks in the liberal internationalist fantasies. So, expect to continue to make incorrect predictions and to face further electoral defeats.
The very impulse to try hide this comment in anger instead of reply rationally is part of why Trump won, and will continue to win no matter how foolish he acts.
His point was that Putin generally lies instrumentally to foreigners and pathologically domestically, whereas the west lies pathologically in both areas:
Here you can see a link from the BBC where Putin admits that of course he was lying about the little green men. Because the lie no longer serves a purpose, it is thrown out. He is a gruesome thug, but he lives on planet earth.
Whereas respectable western foreign policy figures and politicians are still to this day lying about the 75+ coups against democratic governments orchestrated by just the US in the last 120 years
Yeah no. Mearsheimer is an idiot. He bases his premise on his belief that Putin doesn't lie. Even you and Putin admin Putin himself admit Putin is a liar.
Not sure what that has to do with your follow on. I don't base if Putin lies on if America lies, I base it on if Putin lies.
I think a neutral observer would find you so unpersuasive and so illogical that they would naturally take the opposite of whatever views you hold, just for fear of being associated with such tautological and childish rhetoric.
I think people are in denial but don't you think you're answering your question with your question ?
What about Ukraine? No more weapons or intelligence, just as it starting to get even worse for Russia. Hmm how weird?
I can fully imagine a time in the near future where you will see US arms and fighters going to Russia and people will be fine with that because their leader said so.
Which other country would be obsessed with Greenland? Doesn't the US already have a military presence there? Isn't already a US ally ? Odd ?
> [...] just as it starting to get even worse for Russia. Hmm how weird?
Says who? The sources I've read do not suggest things are "starting to get even worse for Russia". It was slowly making gains, albeit at a huge cost. At best it was a stalemate.
eg.
"Amid talk of a ceasefire, Ukraine’s front line is crumbling"
I'm reading the opposite, Ukraine is taking back ground and Russia's Pokrovsk is going backwards. I've also read reports there have been mass surrenders and disobedience in the Russian ranks.
Mostly I follow "Ukraine the latest", I've listened everyday for 3 years and I don't think they lie because I've listened to it through some VERY tough and depressing times for Ukraine. So it's not just one sided.
Denys Davydov is also good, once again very honest guy on Youtube. Also tells it like it is, also reported some very tough times. He is Ukrainian, yes but if you follow him, you will see he is objective.
Those photos of Russians on buildings with flags aren't good indicators of anything, they've been doing that for years now, they ordered to put themselves at risks for those photo ops, they're propaganda.
I can't read the Economist article but I keep seeing Trump saying how dire it is for Ukraine but I believe he is lying and saying that to justify his extortionist behavior towards Ukraine and to force Zelensky into to a deal.
If it was that bad the war would've been over years ago. I think Trump's betrayal will make it pretty bad for them though. Let's see what Europe can come up with.
It also seems like a LOT of Ukraine's success has been from FPV drone usage, they seem to be further ramping that up and also have ramped up production.
> Which other country would be obsessed with Greenland?
China is obsessed with Greenland, which is why the US now is. You can find many articles on China’s interest in Greenland, going back years (before Trump). Some even suggest that China has been looking to get more infrastructure contracts there to control Greenland through debt.
For the US and EU, preventing China’s access to the Arctic is important. But also Greenland happens to have rare earth deposits, which are useful because China is going to hold back supply of various resources like rare earths and titanium.
Isn't mining anything in Greenland bloody hard given the arctic climate ? It kinda has so low population and small economy for a reason & I don't think global warming will measurably help with it.
Already Russia has been sending russians to compete in Texas and other rodeos to pick up anticipated skill sets when the tundra is replaced by rich grasslands.
Mining there has been repeatedly considered. It hadn’t happened mainly due to environmental concerns and politics, not practicality. For example, back in 2021 a left leaning party won elections there and pledged to block mining projects immediately:
The same article mentions that even at that time, a partnership between an Australian company (whose biggest shareholder is a Chinese company) and a Chinese company had already spent $100 million on preparing for a mining project, at this place:
The US would be quite lucky if Russia turned back to a frenemy relationship with NATO. It seems highly unlikely that will happen given the last 15 years of conflict. The attempt to Balkanize and neuter Russia looks like an abject failure. Throwing more arms and Ukrainian youth into that meat grinder is a very cynical way to proceed. Rather than growing closer to Europe via trade and energy interdependence, the strategy in Ukraine and Syria has driven Russia further into alliance with China and Iran. Looks like a mistake in hindsight. Would have been better to cultivate Russia against China and align Russian interests with Europe rather than Beijing.
Before the negative reviews come pouring, consider that the rise of China was the result of exactly this strategy in reverse. At the time "Nixon in China" was an attempt to support a largely agrarian Chinese communist state to give Russia (the stronger competitor) something to worry about on its eastern flank. Strengthening and emboldening the communist "little brother" was a deliberate foreign policy goal during the Cold War. This strategy was what the protean Henry Kissinger was most famous for at the time. Talk about unforeseen consequences. Maybe we bet on the wrong horse. China in 2025 seems like a much more serious global competitor than Russia. Ask yourself, who would you rather compete with?
I mean, the US is also sort of responsible for what happened in Russia too, with the oligarch class being born out of the 'shock therapy' that US-based institutions and economists pushed for...
Russia might be a much more democratic place today if not for the massive economic problems that caused...
That is true and also deliberate US policy to ensure there would never be a strong Russia again. Russia has always loomed large over Europe since probably the Huns. There have been times when the Russian state was Europhilic (e.g., Peter the Great or when the language of the Russian court was French). And times when the Slavic and Eastern impulses have reigned. The claims that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire is probably mostly propaganda. But something can be literally false, but spiritually true. Given its geographic perch across Eurasia, Russia's spiritual destiny may demand Empire or Death. It's an open question whether the Russian Federation can accept a subordinate role on the world stage. They will likely continue to aspire to being a sovereign pole in proposed multipolar world order.
"The claims that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire is probably mostly propaganda" is correct by Putin's own he words. He just wants control of everywhere in the ex-Soviet where Russian speakers live.
You do realize nobody wanted to do that, and Putin's aggressive thuggery is 100% the reason why Russia has been isolated. Cultivating an invader doesn't make sense for anyone.
Its seems you have bought into the Russian propaganda about how they were victimized with NATO. The reality is Russia got everything it needed, its economy was doing comparatively well, its elites were welcome all over Europe. Europe ignored all the shade stuff they continue to do all the time. The Russian elite enriched itself buying all the luxury products of Europe and going to St.Moriz and living in London.
I have only bought into my readings in history. The events I credit are:
- The 1970s opening of China by Nixon and the documented policy goals contra the USSR.
- The waning years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was weakened and falling apart leading to 1989 and the aftermath in Eastern Europe and Russia.
- The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs").
- The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership.
- The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.
- Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war intended to bankrupt the country, isolate it via sanctions, deplete Russia's military, and ultimately, depose achieve regime change to a more pliable Western allied Russian leadership (essentially to do to Russia what was done in Ukraine). The ultimate policy goal being to "balkanize" (weaken) the Russian Federation to achieve Western dominance over Russian policy and resources.
I'm not terribly concerned with whether this was sound policy or not. Or what corrupt "elites" do with their ill-gotten gains. I'm just interested in the facts of history. This doesn't say that Putin is blameless or even a "good leader". Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid. Germans may be the biggest dupes of all in this whole mess. I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children.
Duuuude, Ukraine does not need to be someones pawn to not want rule of a country like Russia. And Ukraine protests were all Ukrainians - because large mass of citizens wanted to be in a democratic pro European country.
NATO was enlarging, because countries begged to be members of a nato.
Russian citizens are super poor, living in a country with little to offer. Not wanting to be part of that is only natural, especially when you look like Europeans live.
- The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.
This is literally garbage-tier Russian propaganda that has no connection to reality. We can easily test it: name one foreign military installation in Ukraine. Just one.
You won't find any, because it's just not true. These claims circulate mainly on the social media, alongside conspiracy theories about the Earth being flat and vaccines causing autism. High-quality sources offer a completely different picture than the one you've gathered from low-quality sources.
Why were prominent US policy folks so concerned about the Ukraine biolabs? Why did the US invest hundreds of millions to build dozens of labs in Ukraine?
I'll tell you what I think.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US saw newly unemployed Soviet bioscientists as geopolitical risks under the assumption that they were actively engaged in bioweapons development under the Soviet Union and were now vulnerable to being picked up by new patrons hostile to US interests. Rather than allowing a bunch of bioweapons experts to become free agents, we built them a bunch of labs to keep them out of the hands of our enemies. What would they work on? Well, developing bioweapons is illegal, didn't you know? And the US observes all international law, didn't you know? So, instead of developing bioweapons, we'll have them develop biosafety! See how that works? But to develop biosafety we'll also need to build the unsafe things so we can build the vaccines and antidotes to the bad things. We'll never ever use those bad things, or God forbid, have bad opsec and allow them to escape one of these completely independent and in no way associated with military research labs. Never. Never. Never. That sounds like conspiracy theories. What made you even think that?
You've fallen one of the dumbest conspiracy theories. There are no facts whatsoever to support it. Russia tried to label regular scientific research as "secret bioweapon labs" and even scientists from Russia published an open letter calling these claims outright lies. If by "prominent US policy folks" you mean Tulsi Gabbard, then yes, she too fell for it and was widely criticised for lacking basic critical thinking skills. Many right-wing social media channels repeat Russian propaganda word-for-word, so people following them may not even realize where all that actually originates from.
Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this:
In March 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials falsely claimed that public health facilities in Ukraine were "secret U.S.-funded biolabs" purportedly developing biological weapons, which was debunked as disinformation by multiple media outlets, scientific groups, and international bodies.[5] The claim was amplified by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chinese state media,[10] and was also promoted by followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory and subsequently supported by other far-right groups in the United States.[17]
Russian scientists, inside and outside Russia, have publicly accused the Russian government of lying about evidence for covert "bioweapons labs" in Ukraine, saying that documents presented by Russia's Defense Ministry describe pathogens collected for public health research.[18] The "bioweapons labs" claim has also been denied by the US, Ukraine, the United Nations,[12][19][4] and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.[3]
Here is noted neocon and Ukraine hawk Victoria Nuland's testimony confirming the existence biolabs in Ukraine and expressing concern for their integrity:
"I only have a minute left. Let me ask you, does Ukraine have
chemical or biological weapons?
Ms. NULAND. Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in
fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces,
may be seeking to gain control of.
We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent
any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Rus-
sian forces should they approach.
Senator RUBIO. I am sure you are aware that the Russian propa-
ganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information
about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release
biological weapons in the country and with NATO’s coordination.
If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack in-
side of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent
it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
Ms. NULAND. There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is
classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they are
planning to do themselves."
You are simply arguing my point but seemingly unable to understand it. The point is that "biolabs" in Ukraine are inevitably conducting bioweapons research by any other name. Surely you would by now acknowledge that the Wuhan biolab was also conducting research of this kind and has been revealed to be funded by USAID via EcoHealth Alliance. This was obvious back in 2020 if you already understood how these investments work. You're 100% wrong to say no facts support it, but leaving that aside, there are standards of evidence that may not amount to the "smoking gun" proof you seem to be calling for. I don't know why such a thing is so inconceivable to some people. History is replete with examples of states doing such things under the radar. In this case, there is "a preponderance of evidence" (yes, some of it "circumstantial evidence") that Wuhan Lab was conducting what used to be called "gain of function" research. (Go ahead and quibble over meaningless distinctions, I'll wait.) The stated goal is to develop vaccines for possible zoonotic diseases. But in fact what happens is that zoonotic diseases are postulated theoretically and developed in anticipation of their appearance in the wild. In fact, these Dr. Moreaus go beyond the physically likely and create all kinds of freaks and chimeras in the lab that are, surprisingly, tailor-made to harm humans. But of course, it's all for vaccine development and biosafety. Only an idiot would accept that explanation after reviewing the network of funding and secrecy surrounding these labs. "Russian scientists...have accused..." as if I can't find you American scientists at the highest level of government who have accused such trivial plausible or even likely explanations as conspiracy theory. Turns out some of those scientists were involved in cover-ups and personal financial gains off the research. You seem very ready to condemn Russian propaganda but equally eager to accept Western propaganda. Why not maintain an equal healthy skepticism of both?
The point is that "biolabs" in Ukraine are inevitably conducting bioweapons research by any other name.
Biological research != bioweapons.
At the very least, every country that grows food has biological laboratories to monitor the health of livestock and detect outbreaks of diseases like African swine fever. I don't see how this "inevitably" means they are conducting bioweapons research. It's like accusing every car repair workshop of secretly building tanks for the international black market of weapons. You need to provide something more substantial than mere conjecture before jumping to that conclusion.
The quoted testimony doesn't support your argument either: as the snippet points out, people were concerned that Russia could release existing dangerous samples or plant something to justify their propaganda, cause an outbreak of some horrible disease, and blame Ukrainians for it. "A classic Russian technique," as Nuland called it.
And before you jump from "dangerous samples" to "a-ha! bioweapons!", let me remind you that even something as mundane as the carcass of a sick pig can be dangerous. Careless truckers caused a massive swine fever outbreak near me when they didn't insulate the trucks well enough to prevent bodily fluids from dead pigs from dripping out onto rural roads that passed farms. Any lab worth its name must have plenty of things nobody would want to see meet the kind of dumbass Russian soldiers who ransacked Chernobyl's hazardous material warehouses for anything that appeared valuable.
My arguments are made in the context of the post cold war breakup of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. The Soviets had a program of bioweapons research. The same concerns about nuclear arms containment after 1989 applied to this program, including securing the scientists involved.
Why would the US invest $200M to build these labs in Ukraine of all places. The country is poor, corrupt, and unstable. Does that sound like the udeal place for a pathogen research lab? More like the circumstances surrounding Ukraine after the fall of the USSR chose Ukraine as the least bad option for containment and control over these programs.
My point is that defensive bioresearch is one side of a bioweapons program. You perhaps lack the scale and deployment capabilities but not the expertise with production and handling. More importantly, the specific strains of contagions the Soviets were developing before the fall are still in those labs. Presumably they would be backbones of ongoing research in Russia today. It is a vital US interest to study these pathogens. Losing access to the could be what Nuland was referring to.
Why would the US invest $200M to build these labs in Ukraine of all places. The country is poor, corrupt, and unstable. Does that sound like the udeal place for a pathogen research lab?
If you are studying drug-resistant tuberculosis or HIV, both of which have high rates in Ukraine, then yes, absolutely, such country is a key place for studying transmission patterns and treatment strategies. Ukraine has a particularly long history of tuberculosis research. Many of the earliest resorts in Crimea were originally established for tuberculosis treatment, and visited by wealthy patrons from all over Eastern Europe and Russia. Russian literary classics from the 19th and early 20th century often reference this.
Ukraine is also one of the largest grain producers in the world, which makes them a top destination for research in grain diseases, disease-resistant varieties and pest control. Due to Chernobyl's legacy, they unfortunately excel in cancer research too, and the US has funded many long-term studies related to the nuclear disaster.
Speculating "what if they're actually developing bioweapons" is not much of an argument unless you can back it up with actual evidence.
My arguments don't preclude "legitimate research." Nor do I claim there is only a single reductive reason for something. I'm struck by recent revelations about the Wuhan lab and the kinds of research that are conducted via less vigilant regulatory environments. That coupled with the legacy of a Soviet bioweapons program that included Ukraine labs makes me think less charitably than you do. But, as you say. It's probably completely above board. It's Ukraine, after all, the epitome of law and order.
Ukraine has a significant legacy in other areas too. The Yuzhmash factory in Dnipro used to manufacture some of the best Soviet nuclear missiles, but that alone does not mean that Ukraine still has a nuclear weapons program. Instead, they are now a subcontractor for commercial space rockets. Their parts have been used by SpaceX and others.
Most of the USSR's legacy was completely dismantled across the former Soviet Union. People were fired, facilities were closed and demolished, and machinery was sold for scrap metal, because everything was ridiculously outdated and couldn't compete on the global market. Places like Yuzhmash that survived by successfully pivoting to something commercially viable are a fairly rare exception. In farming equipment, for example, the USSR was so far behind that almost nothing survived, and Ukrainian farmers nowadays use John Deers and New Hollands and Claases and Deutz-Fahrs.
So, there's nothing surprising about the dismantling of the Soviet bioweapons program. It was a tiny and insignificant part of the far greater disruptions that the country went through. That's why the US got involved at all - to ensure an organized shutdown, because the domestic authorities were busy with massive poverty, crime and other far more pressing issues.
Yes, as you say, an organized shutdown. That is my belief as well. I also believe that national security considerations were a factor and dominance of Ukraine was a policy goal of the West to permanently sever Russia from its Eastern European confederates. This was not secret strategy. It's what any sensible policy would include given the chaos. Power abhors a vacuum. I don't see the controversy. I suppose you would also claim that research at Wuhan has nothing whatsoever to do with bioweapons research. Or perhaps that its research program was independently funded, not by the US government.
Do you have any actual evidence? So far, you have offered only conjecture.
This seems to be a common trait among people who are into conspiracy theories: they take the mere fact that they can construct a remotely plausible scenario as proof that it is the truth and actually happened.
I'm not sure what evidence could convince someone so dead set against the legitimacy of conjecture. I'm one (along with Aristotle and others) who credits inference to the best explanation as a valid form of reasoning. You seem more interested in hurling "conspiracy theory" ad hominem attacks than taking a few minutes to learn some history and consider whether what I'm speculating is merely "remotely plausible" or rather "quite likely." If you lack the time or imagination to do some research, accept the following "actual evidence."
Here is a GAO National Security report to Congress on the topic. I strongly encourage you to read the entire document yourself here https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-00-138.pdf
But first, I'll call your attention to the rank of the people involved in this report. It's not some backbencher vanity project. I hope you'll agree that these aren't "conspiracy theorists". If you bother to read it, of course. I hope you will and admit that your beliefs about this "conspiracy theory" need upgrading.
I'll quote liberally from the GAO report below but this is just one example of many documents available (if you merely look) that should meet a reasonable standard of evidence. For instance you could read the lucid book BioHazard by a former deputy director of the Soviet bioweapons program. He talks about biodefense and vaccine programs (among other things) in the context of the bioweapons arms race, and the billions of dollars allocated by the US to "biodefense". If you think all that money is going to crop management I've got a bridge to sell you.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/esmallpox/biohazard_alibek.pd...
Here you go. If you come back to insist that none of this means that the labs are developing bioweapons "per se" I refer you back to the report's urgent observations that it is very difficult to distinguish legitimate biodefense programs from bioweapons programs (as I have been arguing). If you still can't accept that the US "biodefense program" is the rebranded "bioweapons program", I can't help you with that cognitive bias.
-----------
"April 28, 2000
The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats and Capabilities
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
Although it signed the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, 1 the
former Soviet Union covertly developed the world’s largest offensive
biological weapons program, which relied on a network of military and
nonmilitary scientific institutes, according to a January 2000 Department of
Defense report to Congress. 2 Many of these nonmilitary institutes were
overseen by Biopreparat—an ostensibly civilian pharmaceutical enterprise
that exploited the inherent dual-use nature of biotechnology to mask Soviet
development of biological weapons using specially engineered strains of
dangerous pathogens, including anthrax, plague, and smallpox. Russia
renounced the Soviet program in 1992 and subsequently cut funding for
Biopreparat institutes; nonetheless, the United States remains concerned
about the extent of Russia’s compliance with the Convention. Reasons for
concern include Biopreparat’s retention of its Cold War leadership and
existing ties to former Soviet nonmilitary biological weapons institutes in
Russia, although Biopreparat no longer funds them. Although Russia has
generally allowed the United States access to its nonmilitary institutes that
receive U.S. nonproliferation assistance, Russia has consistently rebuffed U.S. efforts to inspect its military institutes currently managed by the
Ministry of Defense.
Notwithstanding these concerns, in 1994 the United States began funding
collaborative research projects with former Soviet biological weapons
scientists 3 because it feared that these scientists might be driven by
financial pressures to sell their skills to countries of proliferation concern
or to terrorist groups. 4 The executive branch initially funded this effort at
modest levels and used it to redirect scientists to peaceful activities;
however, it is now expanding the program’s size and scope. Because of this
shift, you asked us to review U.S. efforts to address the threat of biological
weapons proliferation from the former Soviet Union. Accordingly, we
examined
• the potential threats that the former Soviet biological weapons institutes
could pose to the United States,
• current and future U.S. efforts to address these threats, and
• risks associated with the expanded U.S. effort and executive branch
plans to mitigate them."
It goes on:
"The former Soviet Union’s biological weapons institutes continue to
threaten U.S. national security because they have key assets that are both
dangerous and vulnerable to misuse, according to State and Defense
Department officials. These assets include as many as 15,000 underpaid
scientists and researchers, specialized facilities and equipment (albeit
often in a deteriorated condition), and large collections of dangerous
biological pathogens. These assets could harm the United States if hostile
countries or groups were to hire the institutes or biological weapons
scientists to conduct weapons-related work. Also of concern is the
potential sale of dangerous pathogens to terrorist groups or countries of
proliferation concern. State and Defense officials told us that since 1997,
Iran and other countries have intensified their efforts to acquire biological
weapons expertise and materials from former Soviet biological weapons
institutes. In addition, deteriorated physical safety and security conditions
could leave dangerous pathogens vulnerable to theft or distribution into the
local environment. Finally, much of the former Soviet biological weapons
program’s infrastructure, such as buildings and equipment, still exists
primarily in Russia. While most of these components have legitimate
biotechnological applications, they also harbor the potential for renewed
production of offensive biological agents.
The U.S. strategy for addressing these proliferation threats at the source
has been to fund collaborative research activities with the institutes to
(1) reduce their incentives to work with hostile states and groups and
(2) increase their openness to the West.
While the executive branch initially
implemented this strategy with a modest level of funding, it is now seeking
a tenfold increase in funding in response to intensified proliferation
attempts by Iran and other countries of proliferation concern. The
increased funding will support an expanded array of collaborative
activities, including biodefense research 5 against biological agents,
security upgrades to select facilities, and dismantlement of unneeded
facilities.
• For fiscal years 1994 through 1999, the United States allocated about
$20 million, primarily from the Departments of State, Defense, and
Energy, to fund collaborative research projects to help redirect former
biological weapons scientists to peaceful research activities. Key program benefits during this period included providing grants to fund
more than 2,200 former Soviet biological weapons personnel—including
more than 745 senior biological weapons scientists—and gaining some
access to more than 30 of about 50 nonmilitary institutes. State and
Defense officials told us that the U.S. programs have denied
proliferators such as Iran access to biological weapons expertise and
scientists at over 15 former Soviet biological weapons institutes.
• For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the executive branch plans to spend
about $220 million to expand its efforts to engage former Soviet
biological weapons institutes. About half of these funds will be used to
continue efforts to redirect scientists toward peaceful civilian research.
• In an emerging area of emphasis, Defense and State plan to spend about
$36 million to fund collaborative research with Russian institutes on
dangerous pathogens. This research is intended to improve the U.S.
defenses against biological weapons threats. The Department of
Defense also plans to spend (1) $40 million to upgrade security and
safety systems at select facilities in Russia and (2) $39 million to
consolidate and dismantle biological weapons facilities in Russia as it
has done in Kazakhstan—if Russia agrees."
Color revolution theory is Putin's paranoid delusion. The US frequently backfired tremendously in such endeavours, and that was when actively arming coups, not something as complicated and subtle as brainwashing a population towards revolution.
For anyone interested in understanding Putin's obsession with ghosts of color, see this excellent video essay: https://youtu.be/7OFyn_KSy80
> - The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs").
They had the same policies in Russia as in other parts of the former Soviet Union. And in many places the much attacked 'Schock Thearapy' actually worked, see the Baltics, Poland and so on.
The simple fact is, the oligarchs were strong in Russia. They barley had any legal system, they had 10x more former KGB members then judges. To blame the US for Oligarchs is utterly ridiculous.
Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conquered Germany or Japan. And the actual influence of the US was far more limited then some people (including Russian) claim.
And the whole reason, the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place, was because the oligarchs didn't want to defend it and were happy to get rid of it because then they could buy German cars and French wine easier.
> - The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership.
You seem to be one of those that only looks as states as acting. This is simply not the case. People act. Just because a leader is democratically elected, doesn't mean people can't go to the streets and demand they leave. And that includes people who initially voted for them. You are just repeating absurd Russian propaganda that all anti-Russian protest and organization are a CIA plot.
The idea that the CIA has these magical powers where the can just create popular revolution out of nowhere is nonsense, its only believed by dictators and maybe the CIA itself.
The reason for the colored revolutions are quite simply that Russian gansters/oligarchs try to control and dominate those states and victimize its population, against the democratic will of the people. See this in action right now in Georgia.
This isn't history, you are just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. Because I mean for sure, the only reason somebody could be against 'GREAT RUSSIA' is that they are a paid spy. Do you also believe this was the reasons for the popular revolutions against the Soviet Union?
> - The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.
Oh so now Putin is the poor victim of internal pressure? You got to be kidding me. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to. Recreating the Russian empire was Putins goal from the beginning. The only difference was that early on he hoped to do it with Western buy in and that they would care that Russia builds a 'Sphere of Incidence'.
And if the US and others were as strategic about trying to create a war, why was the response to Crimea in 2014 so limited?
This position again, just pure Russian and Putin propaganda with no basis in reality. Bioweapons, you got to be brain-dead to believe that. You are deep-deep down the Russian conspiracy rabbit-hole.
> - Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war
And yet most in the US government thought that Russia would win quickly and lost cause was put forward as an argument why giving them weapons is pointless.
And please, show me these official documents that claim this.
> isolate it via sanctions
Why then were they so hesitant to sanction Russia over Crimea and Syria? If this was US strategy, they could have done far more far earlier.
The claim that there was this grand strategy by US to destroy Russia is nonsense, its simply not factual. Maybe some element and people in the US thought so. But there is and was an even larger trend that hoped to eventually align Russia with Europe against China in the future. You are basically cherry picking every possible thing on one side of the argument, while ignoring all the others. US policy has been far from consistent on this and they never had an explicit policy of trying to balkanize Russia. Please show me primary first hand evidence that this was policy at any point.
Your story is what happening in the head of Russian conspiracy theorists, but it has no bases in actual history.
This is basically the whole Rome only thought defensive wars and conquered most of the known world. Always be the play the victim even if you are clearly the perpetrator. Some people might buy it.
> I'm just interested in the facts of history.
The 'facts' brought to you by the Russian propaganda machine maybe and while ignoring many other facts at. the same time.
> I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children.
No its actual called simply real politics and its not a children story. Sometimes leadership of countries are simply not nice, they are self interested and they don't give a shit about the people who will be harmed by what they are doing.
Russia is 'strong' and threw its history it beat up on its weaker Neighbors, why the fuck do you think Russia is so big?
What is a story for children is your story, one where these weak neighbors anytime they disagree with Russia are instantly called puppets of the Ottoman, the British, the Germans or the US. As Russia has done for all of its history. Stalin famous position was that small states don't exist, they are either Soviet puppets or British puppets. And Putin is using this exact same logic. And you seem to do so too.
Generally a pretty good checkup on who is 'good' and who is 'bad', I suggest you look at who sent an army over border and started instantly victimizing the population. But you are above such simple moral judgment. You understand that the US was sponsoring a "Transgender Theater" in Kharkiv or whatever and that of course was all part of the CIA pyops against Russia, so they had to go in and slaughter 100000s of people.
Congratulation you rationalized yourself into supporting the largest offensive war in European history since WW2 and you claim the clear and obvious aggressor isn't actually bad.
> "for no reasons whatsoever"
Yeah this is like if I say to you 'your dumb' and then you pull out a gun shoot me in the head, and before court you say 'I had good reason to shoot'.
> Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid.
Again whenever people say '100%' of course its never true. But your line of argument is not about if its 90% or 95%. The arguments you are putting forward are exactly the arguments that people use that want to justify Russia and sometimes even claim Ukraine was to blame outright.
You seem quite animated and zealous about the topic and I certainly don't want to antagonize you. I don't recognize my own positions in your portrait. You seem very passionate about it and I suppose you have particular interests in the region. Very well, but I don't and can look at the situation from afar and it just looks like typical great power politics. Every great power employs propaganda, not just Russia. And every state is subject to foreign influence. Every leader is subject to internal pressures. You seem to subscribe to a position that Putin is some kind of Stalin with absolute power. I don't see that. In fact, even Stalin wasn't Stalin. It's a fantasy to think one person can operate as leader of any great power with impunity.
I don't claim that all Western foreign policy is unified. There are ascendant factions at different moments. For the moment the China hawks are back in the driver's seat of US foreign policy and the Atlanticists are out of power for now. But Ukraine policy has been driven (very effectively) by that faction of neoconservatives for over a decade. Get a subscription to Foreign Affairs if you want the consensus opinion of State, DoD, CIA. It matters little that there are diverse opinions, only which opinions drive policy.
I don't think "only states act". Rather, the populace is a player that can be leveraged by those controlling state power. Much of the recent foreign aid debacle is about shedding some light on how these slush funds operate to both launder bribes and to fund foreign influence operations. I don't think Russia is the only power that tries to project influence abroad. Every state tries to do so for its own interests.
That said, there is rarely unity in the population. The US had a recent "people in the streets" moment and two things are both true about that. First, many, many people (perhaps a majority) did not agree with "popular opinion" so called. Not just with the more radical expressions of it but the overall framework. Second, much of the "organic" appearance of those protests were in fact astroturfed. I know several "community organizers" who were active in "getting people out in the streets" and they are currently lamenting their dried up funding. It's mostly fake. The masses will not spontaneously gather for more than a moment without organized activism keeping them on message. So, please. It is a fantasy.
It's also a fantasy that leadership is ever nice. Sovereign politics are in a state of nature. That is, a war of all against all. If some have elected to cooperate, it is because it is in their interest to do so, not because their leadership is "nice". Those are bedtime stories.
Your "primary first hand evidence" demand is a bit lazy but you can find general neoconservative policy (btw all consensus US foreign policy is neoconservative) explained in the Project for a New American Century or by carefully reading policy papers published by RAND on the topic. Or as mentioned Foreign Affairs magazine as a popularizer and influence on public opinion.
I doubt you'll take the time to upgrade your mental software but for any other readers, here are some sources that specifically deal with US post cold war policy in eastern Europe, including Ukraine and Russia.
1994 speech by Bill Clinton "A whole Europe and Free" outlines plans for NATO expansion.
1995 State Department report on NATO Enlargement.
1995 National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement
2002 National Security Strategy document by Condoleeza Rice and Wolfowitz.
Orchestrated color revolutions as a tactic of regime change are implied as tools of democracy by influential neocon Natan Sharansky in his book The Case for Democracy from 2004. NED and USAID we're created to as cold war influence weapons abroad. The OG Orange color revolution in Ukraine wa in 2004, iirc. But that's just a coincidence, right?
Anyway, go read some stuff or don't. I can't hope to help someone so prejudiced. But maybe someone else can benefit from this exchange.
That's EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. Literally all of Europe and the US bent over backwards for Russia. German made it one of there central geopolitical missions to integrate Russia. They invaded Georgia and did many other questionable things, then took Crimea and still most countries were willing to basically not upset the Apple cart. So they did 'cultivate' Russia.
Russia always loves to only talk about NATO and how bad it is. But NATO actually helped Russia because it let the Eastern European feel save and that convinced them that economic collaboration with Russia was in their benefit. And it also passivized these countries, making them far less militarist. Without NATO, these countries would have invested far more in conventional defense for the last 30 years and would have refused any Russian integration.
But at some point cultivation goes to far and you can't just forever say 'well we need Russia against China so they can have Ukraine', 'well we need Russia against China so the can have Georgia', 'well we need Russia against China so they can have the Baltics'.
Like at some point 'cultivating' only works if you have a partner on the other side that has even the slightest interest in cooperation. Russia elites care about their own power, and that power is threatened by justice and democracy, not China. They will not switch and view China as their enemy unless China want to start to be an enforcer of democracy or actively take Russian land.
China knows this and is prepared to wait to get back their Russian territory (and maybe more). China is well aware that Russia is a massively declining power, suffering from massive brain-drain, bad demographics, surviving off left over Soviet industry and massive amount of natural resources (that China can already acquire). So China, despite Russia owning a lot of land that China absolutely believes is theirs, will focus on the US because the West, is a much bigger economic, political and ideological competitor.
So the simply reality is, as long as China has major 'Western' allies close to its borders, you will simply not get Russia and China to really go at each other as they did during the Communist competition days. No matter what day dreaming old Cold Wars have about doing the Sino-Soviet split again.
> Throwing more arms and Ukrainian youth into that meat grinder is a very cynical way to proceed.
Its not cynical if the population there actually wants that. This is not a case where Ukraine has some dictator who is doing some vanity invasion of foreign territory. Its not even like Afghanistan. Because in Ukraine you actually have a pontifical system that can be converted into a long time useful ally.
> driven Russia further into alliance with China and Iran
This is always the fear mongering people use. But this has a number of limitations. First, non of these countries actually like each other. Russia and Iran work together but don't like each other. Russia and China are the same. Russia know well that China really wants to own 80% of Russia, even if this isn't their primary focus right now. They will never be true allies as the US is in NATO, its just not happening. Unless maybe where one is a complete client state of the other.
And in terms of commercial relationship, oil and weapons, they are already doing that. Appeasing Russia in Europe doesn't massively pull them away from China and Iran. Sure maybe they sell slightly less oil in that direction, but the relationships aren't effected that much.
At the end of the day, these 3 regimes, have one thing in common, they don't want Western values based system of values and worst of all democracy. So they will always cooperate along that line.
PS:
> The attempt to Balkanize and neuter Russia looks like an abject failure.
Overall, its not except its not a failure at all. Finland, Baltics, Poland and all the others are now well integrated into Europe and will never go back to being Russian in any sense.
Agree that China is playing a long game and has tremendous patience. If I read your argument right, you're saying that it is foolish to think Russia could be "won over" to Europe, that they were always destined to be autocratic, and therefore their "values" are just too opposed to the West to ever be a partner.
Ok, but I don't think Russia has to be a "Western-style" democracy to not be an active ally of China. They have interests like any other sovereign nation. Maybe breaking up the Russian Federation is a bridge too far, but the achievable policy goal is to weaken Russia internally and make it quite inconvenient for Russia to be allied with other US geopolitical rivals. These are, primarily, China, our true superpower rival, and regionally, Iran (Persia), that asserts privileges in the Middle East that threaten US interests. Russia is the one that could be inconvenienced by alliance with either China or Iran. It was inconvenient and costly for Russia to support Iran ally Syria. There are some pipeline interests for Russia there but Syria is more important to Iran than Putin. Instead of making it costly for Russia to support China, we've made it costly for Russia not to support China. The opposite of what is needed to destabilize our rivals.
Look, I like Europe and have spent a lot of time there and have family there, but I care mostly about American prosperity. To the extent that Europe promotes American prosperity, our interests align. But Ukraine is also about disciplining Europe. Europe has shirked its own security obligations to police its European neighborhood. Worse, some European powers (ahem, Germany) have tried to assert independence from US political control by exploiting access to Russian energy and trying to achieve some kind of energy independence from the US. No bueno. Given its history, the calls for Germany to raise an army and invade Eastern Europe in a war for independence sound like a bit of farce, don't you think? Anyway, not going to happen. Europe must remilitarize, but only to a point. They need to spend enough money to carry their share of the burden, but not to achieve political independence.
I would also challenge the coherence of any arguments based on "Western values" and democracy. Those are terms that have many possible meanings, or no meaning at all.
Mostly because the current president likes tariffs and Russia and doesn't seem to like his democratic allies much. But I'm not sure it's of much benefit to the rest of America. Is anyone saying this stuff is a good idea apart from Trump?
It seems obvious to me that Trump is just playing to his supporters, maybe isn't even thinking at all about the consequences. What merit-based argument is there for these tariffs? None - and so the reason for doing this cannot be merit-based. It must be something else, perhaps something emotional. Like, "look at me, I will stand up to anyone for your cause, including Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbours". How that's going to work out for the average American remains to be seen; good luck...
Yes, that’s how these people think. I fundamentally disagree with it and thinks it’s destructive to society, but these people want to watch things get destroyed. This is why they also applaud cuts in welfare and the federal government. Anything that is part of status quo is considered part of the swamp, so it must burn.
Trump was heavily in debt before elected president. He's scammed his way out and is now rich from being president. Him an his billionaire lackeys run the country by edict. They are the swamp.
A lot of authoritarian countries label themselves as governments of the people and their figurehead as a brave warrior leading a permanent revolution against the ruling class.
Even when their figurehead has held onto power for several decades and executes 12 year olds who write "this gov sux LOL" on a bathroom wall for being a dissident, they keep claiming to be leading an uphill fight against some mysterious power above and half the country keeps loving them.
People love an underdog story. Frame yourself as a permanent underdog, even when you're not, and half of nearly any given country will love you. America now has people with hundreds of billions of dollars claiming to be oppressed underdogs. It should be insane. But people believe it. They'll believe it 20 years from now, too.
I distinctly remember listening to Limbaugh make fun of Trump while riding in a truck with my dad in the late ‘90s. Most of my image of the guy up until his run in 2016 actually came from people making fun of what an awful person and terrible businessman he was, and I probably heard more of that from conservatives than liberals, even. Like, he’s obviously a clown with sleazy used car salesman energy. Everybody knew, of course, because it’s so easy to see, and nobody denied it, it was assumed fact any time anyone talked about the guy.
Fast forward a couple decades and he’s god-king of the right. My dad, who also personally told me things about what a shitty person Trump was, back then, loves the guy and thinks he’s good at everything.
Countries don't have friends, they only have interests. Thinking in terms of a kindergarten and not in terms of geopolitics disqualifies you from serious participation.
Geopolitically, it makes even less sense. Ever since the pandemic it became evident near-shore and friend-shore measures are the only way to ensure resilient supply chains.
To put it simply, would you trust more the Europeans/Canadians/Mexicans to keep selling you something you really need, or Iran/China/Russia?
I think people were made to be disgruntled though, it's falsely directed anger. Whether or not that matters is irrelevant for now. From everything I've seen a lot of the anger was misdirected.
If things keep going the way they're going though, you might see some proper revolt sooner or later.
Except for the people who were doing fine with the status quo and just voted for Trump because he triggers the libs. They might have a wake-up call coming.
And here I am wondering what happened to you guys. Did I hallucinate Obama ragging on Romney for not realizing the Cold War was over? When did Kissinger and Domino Theory come back in vogue?
Probably around the time the largest war in Europe since WW2 began. Your neighbors being actively invaded and the country saying "you're next" on state TV[1] tends to make people think "maybe that country isn't our friend". Saying "I dunno guys. They're killing people and saying they'll kill us next, but maybe we should wait to find out" is not a very smart strategy.
By that logic you could justify American involvement in the first gulf war by saying it was “the largest war in the middle east since WW2” or Vietnam as “the largest war in Asia since WW2.” The logic of opposing american interventionism never rested on the fact that there wasn’t a conflict happening.
Non-westerners who experienced western rule for hundreds of years see this as a positive, not a negative. If you don't understand this comment, that's another part of why most of the world was unwilling to line up behind the US even before Trump.
Fun fact: Russians before the recent changes bought literal package tours that flew them into Cancun then bused them to the border and helped them cross. Know a guy who did it, luckily a good guy - eventually was able to get a green card.
I usually appreciate the well-reasoned intellectual tone of your comments. This is just disappointing.
As for the substance of your comment, America is free to experiment with replacing all of its mutually beneficial relationships with adversarial ones. The consequences might not be particularly advantageous, or easy to undo.
America is committing high-speed cultural suicide and destroying decades of goodwill around the world by alienating its friends and betraying its allies.
I'm not cheering for an American Empire. America is choosing to align itself with a declining dictatorship on the other side of the world, for no particular reason beyond its leader's personal animus towards his domestic political opponents.
America doesn’t have good will around the world based on its foreign policy. In my corner of the world, Russia has been helping bangladesh building a nuclear reactor. China has helped us build a subway. America has hassled us about “human rights” and tried to interfere in our elections.
Are you literally unable to comprehend that people may be opposed to an invader for reasons that are different from 40 years ago? Who is defending the American empire?
Isn’t it the same people supporting Russia who are also talking about making Canada the 51st state and taking Greenland? How is HN defending American Empire?
It’s insane you think HN is the one changing positions and not you. There is a broad consensus across most of the developed world: UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Baltics, Poland, Italy, Canada.
You’re on the Russian perspective against all that and think HN is backsliding, not you?
> There is a broad consensus across most of the developed world: UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Baltics, Poland, Italy, Canada.
The europeans who criticized the U.S. for playing world police to enforce borders in the middle east and asia now support the U.S. playing world police to enforce borders in europe. That’s self-interested hypocrisy, a very understandable form of hypocrisy.
I’m talking about Americans flip-flipping. From America’s point of view, there is no difference between Ukraine, Kuwait, Syria, Korea, or Vietnam. I think a decade ago, most people would be agreeing with me that we don’t need to be getting involved in regional conflicts in those places. Heck, overthrowing Saddam was arguably more materially in America’s interest than defending Ukraine, because America is highly affected by oil prices.
Why would libertarians or social liberals choose Trump over Biden in your opinion? And support of Russia over Ukraine? If Trump was increasing pressure on both, you could argue that he's not picking favorites. But he's actively making life easier for Russia and harder for Ukraine.
Do you believe Trump and his circle will not do anything in their power to turn his presidency into an authoritarian regime?
Do you believe a Trump authoritarian regime with the power of the US military at its disposal will choose non-expansionism even considering Trump's remarks about Greenland, Canada, Mexico?
Isn't EU the ones buying Russian oil and gas? They are paying more for those than they are helping Ukraine. They may kiss and hug Zelensky extra long and do photo ops with him when he visits, but then turn around and fund Putin's war against him.
What are European countries doing to reduce reliance on Russian energy?
The European Union says it has significantly slashed Russian energy exports since the invasion.
The share of Russian gas in EU imports dropped from 45% in 2021 to 18% by June 2024, meaning US exports of gas to the EU has significantly increased.
More recent packages of sanctions have aimed to prevent the Kremlin from circumventing those sanctions.
CREA says tighter sanctions that undercut Russian countermeasures can slash Kremlin revenues by 20% annually, significantly stifling its capacity to fund its war in Ukraine.
> The share of Russian gas in EU imports dropped from 45% in 2021 to 18% by June 2024, meaning US exports of gas to the EU has significantly increased.
Exactly. Isn't it wild? They paid €205 billion to the Russians since the start of the war. Not only that, as you found out, they were paying a lot more in the past! It's like had never noticed he captured Crimea from their neighbor. Not only that US had asked the strengthen their military, spend more on defense, and stop buying Putin's gas and they turned around and did exactly the opposite.
Do you think you Europe can just turn off gas or something ? Like there would be no logistics challenges to replace the supply? Why did Russia continue to supply gas? It wanted the money...
Clearly the European strategy was the one that you probably praise Trump for, trying not to isolate Putin and Russia by buying their gas and using appeasement. They had agreements with Russia that were broken and and have to pivot away from them. Russia was benefiting massively and still broke their promises and broke trust, for what?
So look where appeasement got Europe and Ukraine and it look where it will get Trump and the USA.
Personally, you're argument and history supports the idea that Trump is making a massive mistake with it's new "strategy". Russia only understands force.
Cause it makes them money. Artillery shells cost money.
> Clearly the European strategy was the one that you probably praise Trump for, trying not to isolate Putin and Russia by buying their gas and using appeasement.
I am not praising Trump, sound like your strategy of appeasement of an enemy is to hand them hundreds of billions of euros.
> Russia was benefiting massively and still broke their promises and broke trust, for what?
Exactly. They were fools and now are acting confused Putin took advantage of them, right after they saw him capture Crimea. Moreover, they criticized Americans for telling them not fund a war criminal.
> Personally, you're argument and history supports the idea that Trump is making a massive mistake with it's new "strategy". Russia only understands force.
They only understand force, I agree. I am not sure why you suggest otherwise?
I think people are looking for the photo-op leaders as they conceive stability even though that stability is just a mirage. Trump team is not doing that so it appears like chaos is the rule.
Canada and Mexico are not the US allies. They are okayish neighbors but will stab the US on the back at a moment notice. Between, there was a reportage somewhere on youtube talking about the auto industry and tariffs. Apparently, Canada used tariffs back in the 80s to force the US to build a car industry in Canada.
> I think people are looking for the photo-op leaders as they conceive stability even though that stability is just a mirage.
They are great for photo ops and mighty promises while they are supplying Putin with hundreds of billions of Euros; more than they help Ukraine. And then US told them to increase their defense spending and instead of doing that they they brushed it off as a joke.
It's encouraging to see them pledge more money now, and maybe a plan to build a stronger unified army, though it's not clear why they had to wait three years for it. Or even better, they should have started right after 2014.
You're in a cult. Why would you want to work with the aggressor, who broke his peace vows 27 times? Why wouldn't you work with your closest allies, Canada, Mexico and Europe?
The actions of Donald Trump align USA with Russia over our allies. We recently stopped sharing intel with Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, threatened to withdraw from NATO, insisted Ukraine sign a peace deal giving Russia annexed land, called Zelinski a dictator, etc, you can go on endlessly.
Other automakers are arguably worse off as they operate factories on both sides of the border, have more complex supply chains and are less agile. I honestly don't know how the auto industry is going to survive this chaos. These guys have 5 year lead times on designs, assembly lines, suppliers, supply chains, etc. How does any of that work with weekly tariff policy changes? I wonder if it's all going to backfire and we'll see more cars just fully assembled overseas & shipped in, regardless of tariff.
Tesla has a lot more agility in swapping parts out and handling any differences in software, for better or worse. We saw this during the pandemic with chip shortages.
They have a much more move-fast-and-break-things mentality so for example while they are first to put tablet screens in cars, they were not automative grade which is what lead to a lot of short lifespans in early Model S vehicles. Similar for the flash memory rewrite issue affecting early models.
The screen was never an issue in the 2012-2014 Model S, it was just the adhesive. The flash memory issue did affect my old car, very annoying.
What you said makes sense in terms of relative effect. I think most--if not all--of the companies will come to the admin looking for an adjustment, and they'll get one.
Screen vs adhesive that holds the screen assembly together .. semantics with same outcome - the edges of the screen yellowed progressively over time for some owners, making their expensive luxury car infotainment unattractive / less usable.
Would Musk/Tesla theoretically have money enough to just eat the losses themselves for the first 6 months or so, and then secretly jack up the prices with a dumb excuse attached, when Trumpists have forgotten about the possibly that tariffs could backfire?
Tesla isn't a hugely profitable company. I suspect what will happen here is they'll get a waiver on the import duties if they promise to move the production to the US over some number of years.
