Who knows? On the one hand, Trump has clearly convinced most of the Western European governments that it’s time to spend more on European defence. That’s certainly in line with Trump’s noises about Europe. But the underlying suspicion remains that Trump is gradually abandoning Europe in favour of closer relations with Russia. And right at the moment nobody really knows why, or just how far he might go.
But the underlying suspicion remains that Trump is gradually abandoning Europe in favour of closer relations with Russia. And right at the moment nobody really knows why
I suspect it’s because he thinks America's real threat is China, and sees Russia as a potentially powerful ally against it - certainly to the point that if the price of Russian support against China is allowing Russia to carve up Eastern Europe for itself then it's a price he's happy to pay.
I suspect it's because he likes the authoritarian nature of Russia and China and wants this to be the norm, so he supports them. He sees Canada, Europe and the US Democrats as representing the rule of law, so he dislikes them and wants to squash them.
Some of you may have seen this online in other places this week, but the phrase "calling a deer a horse" is making its way 'round most aptly since the SOTU Show on Tuesday. As a test of loyalty, Chinese chief minister Zhao Gao brought a deer to the royal court but called it a horse to see who'd dare disagree with him, and who'd fall into line despite making themselves look ridiculous in the process.
That's pretty close to The Emperor's New Clothes. Not that that makes it an unworthy narrative, in fact, I think I like it better. But one thing I noticed in Korea was that, more often not, an instructive fable or proverb from English has a close parallel in Korean, eg. "Too many sailors take the boat up a mountain" for our quip about cooks and broth.
The Emperor's New Clothes was a hallmark of his first administration, so it's helpful to have an alternative for the second round's ridiculousness and tragedy.
North Korea likes Russia. Trump used to like North Korea. Does he still?
I don't think Trump's outreach to the DPRK(which was supported by the then-government of the ROK) was because North Korea was pro-Russia, but rather an attempt to get his name in the history books for ending the Korean War.
IIRC, the second summit, in Hanoi, fell apart when the two sides couldn't reach an agreement on whether the DPRK should get a security-guarantee before giving up their nukes(the North Korean position), or give up their nukes before getting a security guarantee(the US position).
I would doubt that either side has changed their position on that question, but I do think that the three meetings between Kim and Trump(the third of which I randomly witnessed live on Korean TV) set a good precedent for future outreach.
Nice one, Trump. Die soon, please, and rot in Hell.
And Trump's response is to threaten sanctions on Russia. Which is Trumpspeak for "I won't get mad if you pay me enough money."
But Trump, in an exchange with reporters, shrugged off the notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of the intelligence pause to inflict more pain on Ukraine.
“I think he’s doing what anybody else would,” Trump said of Putin.
Well, maybe not what anybody else would do. Just those who lack a conscience.
Trump's entire approach to Ukraine is despicable. "Nice county you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Tell you what, you can join my protective association. All you have to do is give me, ohhhh, let's say 50% of your valuable rare earth."
IIRC, the second summit, in Hanoi, fell apart when the two sides couldn't reach an agreement on whether the DPRK should get a security-guarantee before giving up their nukes(the North Korean position), or give up their nukes before getting a security guarantee(the US position).
The thing is the DPRK's position made a lot of sense post-Libya, and makes even more sense now.
IIRC, the second summit, in Hanoi, fell apart when the two sides couldn't reach an agreement on whether the DPRK should get a security-guarantee before giving up their nukes(the North Korean position), or give up their nukes before getting a security guarantee(the US position).
The thing is the DPRK's position made a lot of sense post-Libya, and makes even more sense now.
Bruce Cumings and Andrei Lankov, both academics specializing in Korean politics and history, have made the same point.
Who knows? On the one hand, Trump has clearly convinced most of the Western European governments that it’s time to spend more on European defence. That’s certainly in line with Trump’s noises about Europe. But the underlying suspicion remains that Trump is gradually abandoning Europe in favour of closer relations with Russia. And right at the moment nobody really knows why, or just how far he might go.
It’s Trump. So it may be just a money game.
First, I always get the feeling that Trump feels NATO = European defence to the extent he completely ignores the North Atlantic element. Maybe just ignorance of what really happened on the eastern seaboard in WWII?
Second, the western European countries, UK included, have been woefully complacent about their own defence for decades and a realignment was long overdue. However, to choose a moment when there is a full-scale war going on to force the issue is madness.
Third, are we all making a mistake in thinking there is any rhyme or reason to what Trump is doing? I don't think he feels there is such as thing as "foreign policy", he just sees his time in the White House as a series of deals. His reaction to the counter-tarriffs from Canada and Mexico shows he really thinks he can act in a vacuum and the rest of the world will just lie back and take it.
Of course it is a money game - this is Trump. The problem is that in his business career he really hasn't played the money game very well - witness the fact that he only remained afloat because the banking community kept him going when other, lower profile companies, had the financial rug pulled and went to the wall. His series of bankruptcies*, most of them before the 2007/8 international banking crisis, are proof of that, not to mention the privately owned companies that have been wound-up or simply vanished+.
* Taj Mahal 1991; Castle Hotels &Casino 1992; Plaza Casino 1992; Plaza Hotel 1992; Hotels & Casino Resorts 2004; Entertainment Resorts 2009 - all with "Trump" at the front of course.
...the DPRK's position made a lot of sense post-Libya, and makes even more sense now.
Could be, but it's hard to say. Trump may very well return to yelling about "Little Rocket Man" in the North, while simultaneously threatening to pull all his troops out of the South if Seoul doesn't start putting up more cash for defense, IOW escalating the aggressiveness against your enemy while publically threatening to abandon your ally.
Which would just confuse the DPRK, as well as everybody else, about his intentions. But his general erraticness combined with the lessons of Libya probably will at least keep Pyeongyang on the paranoid side.
Hope doesn't seem like a sane thing to carry in terms of the actions of this administration. I think we're past the point where we can hope that the world gets better without first getting a lot worse.
Nice one, Trump. Die soon, please, and rot in Hell.
Seems like this comment is just over the line, even for Hell. I don't think I could wish death on even my worst enemy, much less rotting in a place of eternal punishment. He will be leaving office eventually, the sooner the better. I can only hope he will not do too much damage.
Nice one, Trump. Die soon, please, and rot in Hell.
Seems like this comment is just over the line, even for Hell. I don't think I could wish death on even my worst enemy, much less rotting in a place of eternal punishment. He will be leaving office eventually, the sooner the better. I can only hope he will not do too much damage.
Nice one, Trump. Die soon, please, and rot in Hell.
Seems like this comment is just over the line, even for Hell. I don't think I could wish death on even my worst enemy, much less rotting in a place of eternal punishment. He will be leaving office eventually, the sooner the better. I can only hope he will not do too much damage.
Totally agree but I am not shocked.
Best leave it to the H&As to decide. I admit that my remark was somewhat intemperate, but, as @Gwai says, I'm probably not alone.
What's shocking is that so many reasonable people who would normally struggle with the moral implications of swatting a fly find the actions of one person so diabolical that they wish him death and hell fire.
It's probably less shocking when you consider how many people his idiocy has already killed, and how many more will die. Those who will die because too many believe the lies and don't get their children vaccinated. Those who will die because he's gambling in international relationships without any cards, risking world war III to appease war criminals. Those in Ukraine who have already died because they didn't get warning of the airstrikes Putin felt empowered to launch.
Mr. Rump. $10 per dozen eggs may be a minor inconvenience for you but tell that to a retired couple having to rely solely on Social Security. Or, if they live in Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio when their monthy electric bill jumps 25% because of your trade war. Or to the farmer in Washingotn who cannot sell his wheat to China.
He will be leaving office eventually, the sooner the better.
He tried really hard in 2020 to not leave office, and I have no doubt he'll do whatever he can think of to stay in office in 2028. It's entirely possible that the only way he leaves the Oval Office is feet first.
I can only hope he will not do too much damage.
How much is too much? What level of death and trauma would you call not too much?
As to wishing certain folk die and RIH not RIP .... as CS Lewis (him again, sorry!) points out, the psalms have many of these sorts of curses. It's what happens when your antagonist really, really pisses you off. It's a natural (human reaction. And (as CSL) again says) a warning against us not to do this to others lest we risk them having these thoughts.
Reading recent copies of 'Nature' and seeing the harm Trump is doing to the science infrastructure I am as guilty as expostulating this curse as others here. LHM.
Seeing
Perhaps we might borrow a Hebrew curse, appropriate to one obsessed with fame and branding: יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ "may his name and his memory be erased".
Perhaps we might borrow a Hebrew curse, appropriate to one obsessed with fame and branding: יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ "may his name and his memory be erased".
Russia has now threatened Australia over its commitment to send peacekeepers to Ukraine, These are not the actions of a party that wants peace negotiations. It is delusional to think otherwise.
Russia has now threatened Australia over its commitment to send peacekeepers to Ukraine, These are not the actions of a party that wants peace negotiations. It is delusional to think otherwise.
“Russia has repeatedly made it clear that foreign military presence in Ukraine is totally unacceptable”
In other words, they won’t accept peacekeepers - they want to be able to wait a year and then invade again.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that all USians knew what the Commonwealth was, not least because it's an overloaded term which has a different valence within the US
I suppose the point being made by @Hugal is that Australia has much the same status as Canada, with HM Charles III as its head of state (for the time being, anyway!).
The chance of Trump trying to annex Australia as well as Canada is unlikely...
I wouldn't necessarily assume that all USians knew what the Commonwealth was, not least because it's an overloaded term which has a different valence within the US
I think we can safely assume that all Americans aren’t reading posts on the Ship. My question was whether there was a reason @Hugal thought “American shipmates” wouldn’t know that Australia is a Commonwealth country.
I suppose the point being made by @Hugal is that Australia has much the same status as Canada, with HM Charles III as its head of state (for the time being, anyway!).
And I’d be willing to bet that American shipmates did not need to have that pointed out to them.
I suppose the point being made by @Hugal is that Australia has much the same status as Canada, with HM Charles III as its head of state (for the time being, anyway!).
And I’d be willing to bet that American shipmates did not need to have that pointed out to them.
IIRC, the second summit, in Hanoi, fell apart when the two sides couldn't reach an agreement on whether the DPRK should get a security-guarantee before giving up their nukes(the North Korean position), or give up their nukes before getting a security guarantee(the US position).
The thing is the DPRK's position made a lot of sense post-Libya, and makes even more sense now.
It looks like North Korea is building a nuclear-powered submarine. Two days ago, North Korean state media announced the project, showing Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un inspecting the still-under-construction hull of the new boat. If successful, the project will give Pyongyang a new tool for antagonizing its neighbors and for creating doubt and uncertainty in the minds of Japanese, South Korean, and American military planners.
<snip>
We know very little of the technical characteristics of North Korea’s new boat. Still, we should assume that it is being constructed to provide for a more effective nuclear deterrent.
Based on images from North Korean television, one South Korean military analysts suggested that the boat could displace some 7,000 tons and carry perhaps ten missiles, putting it on the smaller side of global SSBN fleets. North Korea has some experience building submarines, but nothing with this degree of sophistication or size.
In other words, North Korea is building a boomer in order to shore up its capacity to survive a nuclear or conventional first strike. Less reliant than a conventional submarine on access to friendly bases, a North Korean boomer could theoretically operate independently at some distance from its home port, complicating the problems of targeting and crisis response.
This seems a reasonable next step from the North Korean perspective. Having nuclear weapons is not, in itself, a deterrent. Deterrence comes from the combination of nuclear weapons plus a diversified and/or hardened set of delivery systems to provide a plausible second strike capability.
It's probably a good thing that the DPRK has a conscript military as I can't imagine the volunteer list for working underwater 6" of lead away from a NK built reactor is going to be long.
For my US friends Australia is a Commonwealth country similar to Canada.
Is there a reason you thought American shipmates wouldn’t know this?
I tried not to assume everyone would know. That is an insult and tried to be helpful. Obviously back fired. Yes Ruth I have US friends and friends in other countries. So I am not perfect and make mistakes. Everyone does.
Do Americans not know that they are the ones who have to pay Trump's tariffs, not the exporters?
That seems to be an open question. In the first few days of this admin, there was a meme among Democrats along the lines of "MAGA voters are too stupid to realize Americans are gonna be the ones getting hosed on these tariffs." There's a funny parody song on YouTube called "I Thought The Tariffs...".
But with the tariffs now in place, and their inflationary impact now discussed in the news, not to mention Canadian retaliation, I think it's starting to sink in, and we see Trump switching his rhetoric to "Gonna be a bit of pain as we make the transition to a new economy."
Do Americans not know that they are the ones who have to pay Trump's tariffs, not the exporters?
Many do, many don’t. Many of us were saying that very thing before the election.
I think mine is one more American voice that will be absent from these Trump threads going forward. There are other and much better outlets for my Trump-induced frustration and anger; these threads just compound the frustration.
Do Americans not know that they are the ones who have to pay Trump's tariffs, not the exporters?
Trump was very insistent during the campaign (and in his previous term) that foreign countries were the ones who were going to be paying the tariffs. China specifically, but I think we were meant to extrapolate the point to other countries as well. I'm not sure how much the typical Trump voter is open to information that directly contradicts the pronouncements of Dear Leader.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
We have always had tariffs with North Tundra.
So I can understand that some Americans might be confused on the point. Because the White House certainly is. ("Confused on the point" being the diplomatic way of saying "lying through their teeth.")
The chocolate ration has been increased from 30 grammes per week to 20.
We'll stop calling this "Orwellian" when they stop using 1984 as a playbook.
Possibly we are being too pedantic. Ignoring Trump’s word salad - yes Americans pay the tariffs, but the impact that has on other nations exports to the US does them economic damage.
We could see Trump/MAGA as essentially saying - this will do more economic damage to you than us, and will therefore pressure you to our ultimate economic advantage.
Possibly we are being too pedantic. Ignoring Trump’s word salad - yes Americans pay the tariffs, but the impact that has on other nations exports to the US does them economic damage.
We could see Trump/MAGA as essentially saying - this will do more economic damage to you than us, and will therefore pressure you to our ultimate economic advantage.
I think when Trump said that other countries would pay the tariff, it was meant to be understood as saying the actual fee would be paid by companies in other countries, not that American companies will pay the fee but the other country would suffer the consequences.
Possibly we are being too pedantic. Ignoring Trump’s word salad - yes Americans pay the tariffs, but the impact that has on other nations exports to the US does them economic damage.
We could see Trump/MAGA as essentially saying - this will do more economic damage to you than us, and will therefore pressure you to our ultimate economic advantage.
If you're engaged in the kind of zero-sum thinking Trump typically uses this might be the case. If the choice is selling aluminum to the United States or not selling aluminum at all, the former is usually the better choice. On the other hand in our multi-market world the choice may be between selling aluminum to the United States or selling aluminum to China or selling aluminum to the EU. Sure, the shipping costs might be higher for those last two, but as long as it's less of an increase than the tariffs the Invisible Hand will do its work.
And I'm still amazed by the way people will work incredibly hard to sanewash Trump's claims. We've got very clear statements from Trump and his spokesperson Karoline Leavitt claiming that tariffs will actually decrease costs for American consumers. He's not playing eleventy-dimensional economic chess, he's got one idea and he's implementing it and he's impervious to any contrary information.
Comments
It’s Trump. So it may be just a money game.
I suspect it’s because he thinks America's real threat is China, and sees Russia as a potentially powerful ally against it - certainly to the point that if the price of Russian support against China is allowing Russia to carve up Eastern Europe for itself then it's a price he's happy to pay.
The Emperor's New Clothes was a hallmark of his first administration, so it's helpful to have an alternative for the second round's ridiculousness and tragedy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/russia-launches-huge-strikes-across-ukraine-as-us-halts-intelligence-sharing
Nice one, Trump. Die soon, please, and rot in Hell.
I don't think Trump's outreach to the DPRK(which was supported by the then-government of the ROK) was because North Korea was pro-Russia, but rather an attempt to get his name in the history books for ending the Korean War.
IIRC, the second summit, in Hanoi, fell apart when the two sides couldn't reach an agreement on whether the DPRK should get a security-guarantee before giving up their nukes(the North Korean position), or give up their nukes before getting a security guarantee(the US position).
I would doubt that either side has changed their position on that question, but I do think that the three meetings between Kim and Trump(the third of which I randomly witnessed live on Korean TV) set a good precedent for future outreach.
And Trump's response is to threaten sanctions on Russia. Which is Trumpspeak for "I won't get mad if you pay me enough money."
Well, maybe not what anybody else would do. Just those who lack a conscience.
Trump's entire approach to Ukraine is despicable. "Nice county you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Tell you what, you can join my protective association. All you have to do is give me, ohhhh, let's say 50% of your valuable rare earth."
The thing is the DPRK's position made a lot of sense post-Libya, and makes even more sense now.
Bruce Cumings and Andrei Lankov, both academics specializing in Korean politics and history, have made the same point.
First, I always get the feeling that Trump feels NATO = European defence to the extent he completely ignores the North Atlantic element. Maybe just ignorance of what really happened on the eastern seaboard in WWII?
Second, the western European countries, UK included, have been woefully complacent about their own defence for decades and a realignment was long overdue. However, to choose a moment when there is a full-scale war going on to force the issue is madness.
Third, are we all making a mistake in thinking there is any rhyme or reason to what Trump is doing? I don't think he feels there is such as thing as "foreign policy", he just sees his time in the White House as a series of deals. His reaction to the counter-tarriffs from Canada and Mexico shows he really thinks he can act in a vacuum and the rest of the world will just lie back and take it.
Of course it is a money game - this is Trump. The problem is that in his business career he really hasn't played the money game very well - witness the fact that he only remained afloat because the banking community kept him going when other, lower profile companies, had the financial rug pulled and went to the wall. His series of bankruptcies*, most of them before the 2007/8 international banking crisis, are proof of that, not to mention the privately owned companies that have been wound-up or simply vanished+.
* Taj Mahal 1991; Castle Hotels &Casino 1992; Plaza Casino 1992; Plaza Hotel 1992; Hotels & Casino Resorts 2004; Entertainment Resorts 2009 - all with "Trump" at the front of course.
+ University, Steaks, Magazines, Airline, etc.
Could be, but it's hard to say. Trump may very well return to yelling about "Little Rocket Man" in the North, while simultaneously threatening to pull all his troops out of the South if Seoul doesn't start putting up more cash for defense, IOW escalating the aggressiveness against your enemy while publically threatening to abandon your ally.
Which would just confuse the DPRK, as well as everybody else, about his intentions. But his general erraticness combined with the lessons of Libya probably will at least keep Pyeongyang on the paranoid side.
I think it's safe to say that he doesn't care.
He also cut off US Intelligence Support to Ukrainian forces, so...they're kinda fucked.
Hope doesn't seem like a sane thing to carry in terms of the actions of this administration. I think we're past the point where we can hope that the world gets better without first getting a lot worse.
Seems like this comment is just over the line, even for Hell. I don't think I could wish death on even my worst enemy, much less rotting in a place of eternal punishment. He will be leaving office eventually, the sooner the better. I can only hope he will not do too much damage.
Totally agree but I am not shocked.
Best leave it to the H&As to decide. I admit that my remark was somewhat intemperate, but, as @Gwai says, I'm probably not alone.
It's probably less shocking when you consider how many people his idiocy has already killed, and how many more will die. Those who will die because too many believe the lies and don't get their children vaccinated. Those who will die because he's gambling in international relationships without any cards, risking world war III to appease war criminals. Those in Ukraine who have already died because they didn't get warning of the airstrikes Putin felt empowered to launch.
How much is too much? What level of death and trauma would you call not too much?
Reading recent copies of 'Nature' and seeing the harm Trump is doing to the science infrastructure I am as guilty as expostulating this curse as others here. LHM.
Seeing
Who? .... It's working. PTL!
“Russia has repeatedly made it clear that foreign military presence in Ukraine is totally unacceptable”
In other words, they won’t accept peacekeepers - they want to be able to wait a year and then invade again.
Tune in next week for ‘New Zealand - what one is and where to find one!’
You have US friends?
The chance of Trump trying to annex Australia as well as Canada is unlikely...
And I’d be willing to bet that American shipmates did not need to have that pointed out to them.
Ugh.
I'm sure you're right.
Hey, speaking of Nork Nukes, there's this now.
This seems a reasonable next step from the North Korean perspective. Having nuclear weapons is not, in itself, a deterrent. Deterrence comes from the combination of nuclear weapons plus a diversified and/or hardened set of delivery systems to provide a plausible second strike capability.
That seems to be an open question. In the first few days of this admin, there was a meme among Democrats along the lines of "MAGA voters are too stupid to realize Americans are gonna be the ones getting hosed on these tariffs." There's a funny parody song on YouTube called "I Thought The Tariffs...".
But with the tariffs now in place, and their inflationary impact now discussed in the news, not to mention Canadian retaliation, I think it's starting to sink in, and we see Trump switching his rhetoric to "Gonna be a bit of pain as we make the transition to a new economy."
I think mine is one more American voice that will be absent from these Trump threads going forward. There are other and much better outlets for my Trump-induced frustration and anger; these threads just compound the frustration.
Apparently, today Trump's press secretary stated:
Source.
So I can understand that some Americans might be confused on the point. Because the White House certainly is--or lying through their teeth.
Trump was very insistent during the campaign (and in his previous term) that foreign countries were the ones who were going to be paying the tariffs. China specifically, but I think we were meant to extrapolate the point to other countries as well. I'm not sure how much the typical Trump voter is open to information that directly contradicts the pronouncements of Dear Leader.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
We have always had tariffs with North Tundra.
The chocolate ration has been increased from 30 grammes per week to 20.
We'll stop calling this "Orwellian" when they stop using 1984 as a playbook.
We could see Trump/MAGA as essentially saying - this will do more economic damage to you than us, and will therefore pressure you to our ultimate economic advantage.
I think when Trump said that other countries would pay the tariff, it was meant to be understood as saying the actual fee would be paid by companies in other countries, not that American companies will pay the fee but the other country would suffer the consequences.
If you're engaged in the kind of zero-sum thinking Trump typically uses this might be the case. If the choice is selling aluminum to the United States or not selling aluminum at all, the former is usually the better choice. On the other hand in our multi-market world the choice may be between selling aluminum to the United States or selling aluminum to China or selling aluminum to the EU. Sure, the shipping costs might be higher for those last two, but as long as it's less of an increase than the tariffs the Invisible Hand will do its work.
And I'm still amazed by the way people will work incredibly hard to sanewash Trump's claims. We've got very clear statements from Trump and his spokesperson Karoline Leavitt claiming that tariffs will actually decrease costs for American consumers. He's not playing eleventy-dimensional economic chess, he's got one idea and he's implementing it and he's impervious to any contrary information.
All 340 million of us are exactly the same. We all know and think the same things.