Now, how do we apply this lesson to the climate crisis, in which the petro-states (including Putin's and Trump's) similarly face not just superior technologies, as they already do, but a collapse of their corrupted governing alliances -- such as Putin's may be close to from Ukraine's brilliant resistance already? May we "weaponize" green tech to bring down the oil-igarchs?
One hears constantly that solar and wind power are needed if the United States is to fully develop artificial intelligence. It builds faster and cheaper, with a guaranteed cost of fuel being $0.00 forever. Gotta have it!
Glad to see American pundits are catching up. I’ve been uselessly proclaiming Ukraine’s potential (economically, geopolitically) for two years. Mr trump, russia is a shit-hole country.
"What the corrupt regime in Washington is beginning to realize is that they’re going to need Ukraine’s drone technology to counter China."
I doubt the leadership of the corrupt regime in Washington is capable of realizing this. Not just the Commander in Chief, but the Cabinet, the Secretary of War, and their various lackeys and toadies. Certainly there are those who have not yet been purged who realize this, but the meeting of the military leaders scheduled for tomorrow may very well be to ensure that they are faithful to the Commander in Chief, not the Constitution or (god forbid) the people.
I think hegseth makes the assumption that nothing is better than the US of A. He also assumes the rest of the world agrees. It would never occur to him that there have been advances he might not know about.
It seems pretty clear to me how MAGA will pivot on this question.
A constant criticism of Ukraine through the war from Russia and from MAGA is the suspension of elections. (Never mind that this is mandated by Ukraine's constitution.) Russia, on the other hand, did hold an election in 2024. (It was rigged, of course, but it was held.)
If Ukraine wins, MAGA's talking point on this will pivot to "Ukraine won because they weren't hampered by the uncertainty of an election and had a guarantee of a strong leader throughout".
If Russia wins, MAGA will say it was because Russia was more democratic (in that Putin's rule was validated by an election, and ignore that said election was an obvious sham) than Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, MAGA will say it was because Ukraine was more autocratic (in that Zelenskyy didn't have to worry about an election, and ignore that they were criticising him for it five minutes prior) than Russia.
You are so good. I also subscribe to Sarcastasauras, as I'm pretty sure you do, and this is so in keeping with their "on the ground" observations. Keep it up, Mike!!
“The same European allies and Ukrainian innovators who are reshaping the geopolitical landscape represent potential partners for American democrats willing to think beyond traditional political boundaries”.
Well, yes. But do American democrats also represent potential partners for European democrats? They might if they manage to overcome their version of American exceptionalism, learn to the humility to act as equal partners, and develop a spine.
One of your points seems very off base (there is a lot I disagree with, but this one seems to be missing a very important point). Namely, presidents of both parties have been trying to get Europe to take more responsibility for their own defense, largely I'm vain, since the 1950's. Trump has FINALLY succeeded in doing so, by what ai believe is the only way it could happen (namely by saying that what happens to Europeans doesn't matter that much to America and getting them to believe he means it).
This is an absolute win, and you seem to be painting it as a loss. And it could only happen this way, with Europe being forced, against their will, to regain some strategic autonomy.
The US as senior partner in NATO and provider of other security guarantees such as those around the Pacific rim, ensured US dominance. This is what the phrase, "America as leader of the free world" actually meant. Trump has sought to leverage that dominance to extract transactional gains and so has lost global trust. The Europeans may fawn on Trump for the time being because they have been left vulnerable, but they will adapt. Not only do they no longer trust Trump as guarantor of their security, but they also now know they can no longer rely on the isolationist minded American political system that produced him. Trump is a permanent change. So the Europeans will rearm and improve their own weapons engineering. In a decade or so the US may have to deal with a remilitarised Europe with in consequence a far more independent foreign policy and subsidise its own arms industry to a greater extent because it has lost market share. I say "may", because its far from certain that the Europeans can pull this off. But this is the issue with transactional politics. You may make a quick buck, but people adapt and you end up poorer and friendless.
Not buying it. Bullying and humiliating your allies of 80 years based on the theorynthat they are ripping you off is a fatally flawed strategy. In reality, Ukraine and Europe, particularly Eastern Europe sans Hungary and Slovakia, are protecting our Easter flank, and buying $trillions of US armaments, bolstering our economy and giving us economies of scale in weapons manufacturing. No, all Trump has done is make NATO increasingly irrelevant. They will buy European, and as this article points out, will be first in line for Ukrainian drones when UKR can export. F16s and 35s and carriers will be sold for scrap. America, isolated, alone, and weakened. Perfect for Chinese to take over Taiwan. Paper tiger Trump. MAGA, what a cruel joke played on the gullible.
The US has never taken responsibility for their own part in creating and fostering that dependence. When NATO was formed, America insisted on making their own military equipment mandatory for members to use (and purchase). I believe the main argument was that it would be less expensive, as parts and upgrades could be quickly distributed to all members. So Europe was actively discouraged from building their own fighting equipment. The message was, Don’t bother. America will take care of you.
Hooray for losing our geopolitical dominance for the low low price of being left out of technological partnerships and a near century of european collaboration, all to save pennies on the national security dollar lol
First, only a little more than half of US defense spending is for the NATO area. The rest is devoted to the pacific area. Given that, the size of US defense expenditure is not that impressive. Second, for the US, having learned from the first half of the 20th century, the point of NATO and its Pacific equivalents is simply to avoid having to defend itself on American soil. And third, and accordingly, the US has continually fought the idea of European Strategic Autonomy.
Well yes that was a real upside , I think the Europeans now see that America will not automatically be given the bulk of support to Ukraine. The delivery of weapons to them is very important and NATO is still vital when evil leaders like Putin are still put in charge!
The long-running failure to get Europe to pay more for its own defense is an oddity of history. It was always easily solved. The United States needed only to have confessed to its partners its vulnerability to its own population, telling Europe that the voters would not tolerate paying more than a fair share of the costs of running NATO, and presenting a simple plan: If the NATO partners did not see the need to expend more effort and sacrifice comperable to what the American taxpayers were paying to support them, then the United States could only presume that Europe did not see the need for American help. The United States would therefore withdraw its troops slowly, over a guaranteed period of some years. This would, of course, have weakened the American military position, yet the loss of American troops would have spooked the Europeans into investing more into their military budgets to prevent their becoming vulnerable to Russian attacks. The money would have flowed, and the troops would have stayed. Once again, democracy would have trumped Trumpism!
We don't need Ukraine, we don't need Europe. We certainly don't need to be in the Middle East. Come home , America and pursue a neutralist foreign policy, and neutralist ethos.
"What the corrupt regime in Washington is beginning to realize is that they’re going to need Ukraine’s drone technology to counter China."
What evidence is there that China is coming across the Pacific. Stop the warmongering.
China doesn't need to cross the Pacific. It only needs to cross the Taiwan Strait and prevent TSMC from running its semiconductor fabricators on Taiwan, which are the only ones in the world that produce the most modern models which the US military relies on for its technological advantage, to cripple the United States. It's why Biden said the quiet part out loud: the US would go to war with China to protect Taiwan.
I think even Trump beginning to get who is the good guy and who is the bad guy 😬 But the part about how drones are really changing the balance of power is undeniable even to this administration is a great insight! The other thing people should notice is that Russia is in fact using drones with some success: Cheap Iranian built ones!
Brilliant analysis. And cheering.
Now, how do we apply this lesson to the climate crisis, in which the petro-states (including Putin's and Trump's) similarly face not just superior technologies, as they already do, but a collapse of their corrupted governing alliances -- such as Putin's may be close to from Ukraine's brilliant resistance already? May we "weaponize" green tech to bring down the oil-igarchs?
One hears constantly that solar and wind power are needed if the United States is to fully develop artificial intelligence. It builds faster and cheaper, with a guaranteed cost of fuel being $0.00 forever. Gotta have it!
Glad to see American pundits are catching up. I’ve been uselessly proclaiming Ukraine’s potential (economically, geopolitically) for two years. Mr trump, russia is a shit-hole country.
"What the corrupt regime in Washington is beginning to realize is that they’re going to need Ukraine’s drone technology to counter China."
I doubt the leadership of the corrupt regime in Washington is capable of realizing this. Not just the Commander in Chief, but the Cabinet, the Secretary of War, and their various lackeys and toadies. Certainly there are those who have not yet been purged who realize this, but the meeting of the military leaders scheduled for tomorrow may very well be to ensure that they are faithful to the Commander in Chief, not the Constitution or (god forbid) the people.
I think hegseth makes the assumption that nothing is better than the US of A. He also assumes the rest of the world agrees. It would never occur to him that there have been advances he might not know about.
Huh? What "Secretary of War?!" The United States has a "Secretary of Defense!"
An executive order on September 5 authorised the use of the title "Secretary of War" as a secondary title for the Secretary of Defense.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restoring-the-united-states-department-of-war/
It seems pretty clear to me how MAGA will pivot on this question.
A constant criticism of Ukraine through the war from Russia and from MAGA is the suspension of elections. (Never mind that this is mandated by Ukraine's constitution.) Russia, on the other hand, did hold an election in 2024. (It was rigged, of course, but it was held.)
If Ukraine wins, MAGA's talking point on this will pivot to "Ukraine won because they weren't hampered by the uncertainty of an election and had a guarantee of a strong leader throughout".
If Russia wins, MAGA will say it was because Russia was more democratic (in that Putin's rule was validated by an election, and ignore that said election was an obvious sham) than Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, MAGA will say it was because Ukraine was more autocratic (in that Zelenskyy didn't have to worry about an election, and ignore that they were criticising him for it five minutes prior) than Russia.
Also I don't know how much stock you put in the V-Dem Institute but they've generally had Ukraine as an electoral autocracy: https://www.v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr__2025_lowres.pdf
You are so good. I also subscribe to Sarcastasauras, as I'm pretty sure you do, and this is so in keeping with their "on the ground" observations. Keep it up, Mike!!
“The same European allies and Ukrainian innovators who are reshaping the geopolitical landscape represent potential partners for American democrats willing to think beyond traditional political boundaries”.
Well, yes. But do American democrats also represent potential partners for European democrats? They might if they manage to overcome their version of American exceptionalism, learn to the humility to act as equal partners, and develop a spine.
One of your points seems very off base (there is a lot I disagree with, but this one seems to be missing a very important point). Namely, presidents of both parties have been trying to get Europe to take more responsibility for their own defense, largely I'm vain, since the 1950's. Trump has FINALLY succeeded in doing so, by what ai believe is the only way it could happen (namely by saying that what happens to Europeans doesn't matter that much to America and getting them to believe he means it).
This is an absolute win, and you seem to be painting it as a loss. And it could only happen this way, with Europe being forced, against their will, to regain some strategic autonomy.
The US as senior partner in NATO and provider of other security guarantees such as those around the Pacific rim, ensured US dominance. This is what the phrase, "America as leader of the free world" actually meant. Trump has sought to leverage that dominance to extract transactional gains and so has lost global trust. The Europeans may fawn on Trump for the time being because they have been left vulnerable, but they will adapt. Not only do they no longer trust Trump as guarantor of their security, but they also now know they can no longer rely on the isolationist minded American political system that produced him. Trump is a permanent change. So the Europeans will rearm and improve their own weapons engineering. In a decade or so the US may have to deal with a remilitarised Europe with in consequence a far more independent foreign policy and subsidise its own arms industry to a greater extent because it has lost market share. I say "may", because its far from certain that the Europeans can pull this off. But this is the issue with transactional politics. You may make a quick buck, but people adapt and you end up poorer and friendless.
Not buying it. Bullying and humiliating your allies of 80 years based on the theorynthat they are ripping you off is a fatally flawed strategy. In reality, Ukraine and Europe, particularly Eastern Europe sans Hungary and Slovakia, are protecting our Easter flank, and buying $trillions of US armaments, bolstering our economy and giving us economies of scale in weapons manufacturing. No, all Trump has done is make NATO increasingly irrelevant. They will buy European, and as this article points out, will be first in line for Ukrainian drones when UKR can export. F16s and 35s and carriers will be sold for scrap. America, isolated, alone, and weakened. Perfect for Chinese to take over Taiwan. Paper tiger Trump. MAGA, what a cruel joke played on the gullible.
The US has never taken responsibility for their own part in creating and fostering that dependence. When NATO was formed, America insisted on making their own military equipment mandatory for members to use (and purchase). I believe the main argument was that it would be less expensive, as parts and upgrades could be quickly distributed to all members. So Europe was actively discouraged from building their own fighting equipment. The message was, Don’t bother. America will take care of you.
Well yes but that arrangement is no longer going to persist!
Hooray for losing our geopolitical dominance for the low low price of being left out of technological partnerships and a near century of european collaboration, all to save pennies on the national security dollar lol
MAIA - Make America Irrelevant Again.
First, only a little more than half of US defense spending is for the NATO area. The rest is devoted to the pacific area. Given that, the size of US defense expenditure is not that impressive. Second, for the US, having learned from the first half of the 20th century, the point of NATO and its Pacific equivalents is simply to avoid having to defend itself on American soil. And third, and accordingly, the US has continually fought the idea of European Strategic Autonomy.
Well yes that was a real upside , I think the Europeans now see that America will not automatically be given the bulk of support to Ukraine. The delivery of weapons to them is very important and NATO is still vital when evil leaders like Putin are still put in charge!
The long-running failure to get Europe to pay more for its own defense is an oddity of history. It was always easily solved. The United States needed only to have confessed to its partners its vulnerability to its own population, telling Europe that the voters would not tolerate paying more than a fair share of the costs of running NATO, and presenting a simple plan: If the NATO partners did not see the need to expend more effort and sacrifice comperable to what the American taxpayers were paying to support them, then the United States could only presume that Europe did not see the need for American help. The United States would therefore withdraw its troops slowly, over a guaranteed period of some years. This would, of course, have weakened the American military position, yet the loss of American troops would have spooked the Europeans into investing more into their military budgets to prevent their becoming vulnerable to Russian attacks. The money would have flowed, and the troops would have stayed. Once again, democracy would have trumped Trumpism!
We don't need Ukraine, we don't need Europe. We certainly don't need to be in the Middle East. Come home , America and pursue a neutralist foreign policy, and neutralist ethos.
"What the corrupt regime in Washington is beginning to realize is that they’re going to need Ukraine’s drone technology to counter China."
What evidence is there that China is coming across the Pacific. Stop the warmongering.
China doesn't need to cross the Pacific. It only needs to cross the Taiwan Strait and prevent TSMC from running its semiconductor fabricators on Taiwan, which are the only ones in the world that produce the most modern models which the US military relies on for its technological advantage, to cripple the United States. It's why Biden said the quiet part out loud: the US would go to war with China to protect Taiwan.
there is no way to protect Taiwan. China does not have to take the island to stop TSMC.
Neutralism is the only sane American policy. neutralistassociationofthe.us
I think even Trump beginning to get who is the good guy and who is the bad guy 😬 But the part about how drones are really changing the balance of power is undeniable even to this administration is a great insight! The other thing people should notice is that Russia is in fact using drones with some success: Cheap Iranian built ones!