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 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.
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!!
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 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.
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!!