Europe’s leaders will see the implicit (and, in parts, explicit) criticism of their security policies as unacceptable. And the response will be to double down.
Bit of a cheek for Le Conte to blame others for creating a hateful environment when it was the people she admires that did their best to create the necessary conditions. If it weren’t for the fact these same people are so out of touch and idiotic, one would think they were trying to create an experiment to see how far people can be pushed before they support a genuinely far right government.
Brilliant piece. Your observation about the EU using Trump-panic as a deflection from domestic policy failures really nails what's happening across the continent. When voters in France, Germany and Italy keep signaling they want different approaches to immigration and enrgy policy, Brussels response is to double down on regulatory overreach and blame American influence instead of listening. The irony is that by treating every populist surge as foreign manipulation rahter than legitimate discontent, European elites are actually accelerating the very fragmentation they claim to fear.
I believe Musk is a genius. Tesla and SpaceX have made the world better. I was never a fan of ex-Twitter, but I don't think it is any worse now than it was before. But...
Musk's behaviour with DOGE was appalling. He hired a bunch of twenty-somethings and used his chainsaw to carve off the part of USAID that saves millions of lives. Then he quit in a huff because... well... why?
But that's not why this centre-lefty is concerned about Musk.
There are a bunch of almost-trillionaires who took a sudden interest in European politics over the last few years. Musk, in particular, seems interested in fixing the UK's problems. What happens when a trillionaire uses a billion or two to choose the party that he likes best? Do we have a way to stop that from happening? We had enough trouble stopping Putin from buying Welsh politicians. Can we stop American billionaires or Saudi sheikhs from buying all of them?
This isn't a complaint specifically about Musk, except that, of all the billionaires, he seems most interested in our laws and policies. Maybe I even agree with him on, say, free speech & immigration & overregulating the internet — but I still don't want him to be the one to fix them, because that will be the end of our democracy.
Also, I think it's reasonable for the EU to have an opinion on the relationship between Europe and America. Maybe it's true that European countries should spend more on defence, but what will happen if Putin decides he needs a bit more of Europe? Will America be interested in stopping him? Does NATO really exist any more? What does your average American think about that? Actually, what does your average congressman think? Has anyone asked them?
Would your average American prefer to be allies with Russia and the United Arab Emirates than with Europe? Who cares about democracy when there is money to be made?
Mostly true, but not entirely. The way to go is digital-credit free banking on mobiles. The motherlode problem for the LDCs is poverty. Anything which doesn't address this by empowering local entrepreneurs to create their own prosperity is a band aid applied to an open leg wound. Even teach a man to fish was deeply flawed, because it relied upon the prescriptive power of technocrats, not known for their market understanding, assessment of local needs, or acumen.
Europe is dying. They soon will be no ally at all, sadly. Russia us a hobgoblin of our own making, and need not be so. I have no interest in Islamic nations as allies.
I think we have way too much immigration and way too much Muslim immigration, but the claims in the NSS that we are about to be overrun are just nonsense.
Sadly none of this matters. Europe is dying. Look at collapsing fertility, stagnant economies and weak militaries. I hope they wake up and save themselves but really there isn’t that much we can do.
'Trump is wrong about a lot of things (Ukraine, tariffs, power politics, dealmaking)' - can you explain how?
I get the Ukraine thing, at least at a superficial level. Some of his rhetoric has been ill-judged, even if the Zelensky debacle was taken out of context, with Zelensky actually being the offending party for attempting to derail what was effectively a photo op in a ham-fisted attempt to derail a previously agreed negotiation strategy in favour of a deluded and lunatic belief that more aid/prolonging the war could in any way benefit the Ukraine, even through the rather geopolitically illiterate assumption that a show of steadfastness would in any way be more likely to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
Besides, both Niall Ferguson and Kishore Mahbubani, both just within the Top 10 of living global tier 1 geopolitical observers and thinkers now consider any Ukraine deal which doesn't involve territorial concessions tantamount to living in cloud cuckoo land. Putin's polling numbers are still incredibly strong in Russia, in the high eighties, even if the official numbers are scarcely credible and real support probably lags by a decile and it is weaker amongst the young. The Russian economy, though strained, remains resilient and there are no signs of imminent collapse. Inflation was high relative to growth, but it has peaked and is falling. The best we can hope for is a recession. Sanctions, as always, are proving ineffective. A recent ramp-up of US-led sanctions has dissuaded a few Indian and Chinese refineries to stop trading in Russian oil, but with India reserving the right to strategic neutrality (doubtless somewhat due to their critical reliance on Russian arms for their military), any pressure remains more bark than bite.
Militarily, Russia hold the upper hand. There are three primary vulnerable sectors on Ukraine's defensive line, with a potential fourth emerging according to some analysts. A Norwegian study recently showed that reversing this situation would require an investment of €522–838 billion over 2026–2029, but that not doing so would incur twice the costs. That being said, this assumes strategic inertia on the part of China/Russia. Sure, China are likely to maintain the fiction of non-involvement, but a drone/trade deal in which China supplies the parts for assembly in Russia is not at all infeasible. Indeed, it's already happening in a somewhat opaque fashion. The only difference would be sheer scale.
The Trump decision to aim for at least some concessions in a Ukraine peace deal is the right one. It may be completely unpalatable to Western audiences, but it is the moral decision to take given that there is no politically feasible route to turning the tide in favour of Ukraine, and her position can only weaken.
On tariffs, I would have tended to agree with you in some areas, specifically in relation to imports like steel or aluminium, but not finished goods. But then I did a deeper dive into steel because I was looking at the specific decline in support for Trump amongst Latinos, which it turns out is a result of knock-on effects in construction, which is a key source of employment for the Latino community. It turns out the Trump admin is using tariffs as a bridge to keep American steel viable, while the industry pivots to specialist steel production, a key area of viable profitability and growth going into 2030, and absolutely vital for strategic military purposes.
I don't know what you mean by power politics and dealmaking. Especially when one considers that, other than in relation to China, tariffs are often secondary goals, many of his dealmaking enterprises have been more successful than a conventional approach. African and Middle Eastern leaders recently asked Trump to diplomatically intervene in Sudan, and the house of Saud is far more favourably inclined to America than they were under Biden, during whose tenure there was some concern over realignment towards Russia.
One has to be a realist. Globalism is dead, and it was before Trump took office. The world has shifted from blueprint to scramble. That's a good thing, although it does entail risks. A supranational world order was turning out to be decidedly dystopian. One World international cooperation might have looked good for PR purposes, but nations have always operated in pursuit of narrow self-interest and always will, with even enlightened self-interest a rarity. If people in the West believed otherwise for a while, it was because they had drunk their own Kool Aid. This doesn't mean we should necessarily operate on the basic of political cynicism, but if we want to be more altruistic and kind, we should do so in the pursuit of the interests of own citizens. This also doesn't preclude non-zero sum cooperation, but the correct method for this approach is bilateralism.
Bit of a cheek for Le Conte to blame others for creating a hateful environment when it was the people she admires that did their best to create the necessary conditions. If it weren’t for the fact these same people are so out of touch and idiotic, one would think they were trying to create an experiment to see how far people can be pushed before they support a genuinely far right government.
Brilliant piece. Your observation about the EU using Trump-panic as a deflection from domestic policy failures really nails what's happening across the continent. When voters in France, Germany and Italy keep signaling they want different approaches to immigration and enrgy policy, Brussels response is to double down on regulatory overreach and blame American influence instead of listening. The irony is that by treating every populist surge as foreign manipulation rahter than legitimate discontent, European elites are actually accelerating the very fragmentation they claim to fear.
I believe Musk is a genius. Tesla and SpaceX have made the world better. I was never a fan of ex-Twitter, but I don't think it is any worse now than it was before. But...
Musk's behaviour with DOGE was appalling. He hired a bunch of twenty-somethings and used his chainsaw to carve off the part of USAID that saves millions of lives. Then he quit in a huff because... well... why?
But that's not why this centre-lefty is concerned about Musk.
There are a bunch of almost-trillionaires who took a sudden interest in European politics over the last few years. Musk, in particular, seems interested in fixing the UK's problems. What happens when a trillionaire uses a billion or two to choose the party that he likes best? Do we have a way to stop that from happening? We had enough trouble stopping Putin from buying Welsh politicians. Can we stop American billionaires or Saudi sheikhs from buying all of them?
This isn't a complaint specifically about Musk, except that, of all the billionaires, he seems most interested in our laws and policies. Maybe I even agree with him on, say, free speech & immigration & overregulating the internet — but I still don't want him to be the one to fix them, because that will be the end of our democracy.
Also, I think it's reasonable for the EU to have an opinion on the relationship between Europe and America. Maybe it's true that European countries should spend more on defence, but what will happen if Putin decides he needs a bit more of Europe? Will America be interested in stopping him? Does NATO really exist any more? What does your average American think about that? Actually, what does your average congressman think? Has anyone asked them?
Would your average American prefer to be allies with Russia and the United Arab Emirates than with Europe? Who cares about democracy when there is money to be made?
usaid=ngo slush fund
Mostly true, but not entirely. The way to go is digital-credit free banking on mobiles. The motherlode problem for the LDCs is poverty. Anything which doesn't address this by empowering local entrepreneurs to create their own prosperity is a band aid applied to an open leg wound. Even teach a man to fish was deeply flawed, because it relied upon the prescriptive power of technocrats, not known for their market understanding, assessment of local needs, or acumen.
Europe is dying. They soon will be no ally at all, sadly. Russia us a hobgoblin of our own making, and need not be so. I have no interest in Islamic nations as allies.
We disagree on Doge, it ended too soon.
Which European nation is Islamic?
Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia
Ah, yes I forgot those. But those are not the ones the NSS is talking about, right?
No. The NSS speaks of a trend not an actual situation. France probably has Europe's biggest Muslim population (around 10%)
I think we have way too much immigration and way too much Muslim immigration, but the claims in the NSS that we are about to be overrun are just nonsense.
You mentioned UAE as an ally, I didn't.
A woman calling herself "young vulgarian" complaining that others are being vulgar to her perfectly sums up the state of the modern left.
Sadly none of this matters. Europe is dying. Look at collapsing fertility, stagnant economies and weak militaries. I hope they wake up and save themselves but really there isn’t that much we can do.
Re: Musk leaving government: position by law is 120-days temporary. Plus he has those other companies highly dependent on his being an engaged leader.
'Trump is wrong about a lot of things (Ukraine, tariffs, power politics, dealmaking)' - can you explain how?
I get the Ukraine thing, at least at a superficial level. Some of his rhetoric has been ill-judged, even if the Zelensky debacle was taken out of context, with Zelensky actually being the offending party for attempting to derail what was effectively a photo op in a ham-fisted attempt to derail a previously agreed negotiation strategy in favour of a deluded and lunatic belief that more aid/prolonging the war could in any way benefit the Ukraine, even through the rather geopolitically illiterate assumption that a show of steadfastness would in any way be more likely to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
Besides, both Niall Ferguson and Kishore Mahbubani, both just within the Top 10 of living global tier 1 geopolitical observers and thinkers now consider any Ukraine deal which doesn't involve territorial concessions tantamount to living in cloud cuckoo land. Putin's polling numbers are still incredibly strong in Russia, in the high eighties, even if the official numbers are scarcely credible and real support probably lags by a decile and it is weaker amongst the young. The Russian economy, though strained, remains resilient and there are no signs of imminent collapse. Inflation was high relative to growth, but it has peaked and is falling. The best we can hope for is a recession. Sanctions, as always, are proving ineffective. A recent ramp-up of US-led sanctions has dissuaded a few Indian and Chinese refineries to stop trading in Russian oil, but with India reserving the right to strategic neutrality (doubtless somewhat due to their critical reliance on Russian arms for their military), any pressure remains more bark than bite.
Militarily, Russia hold the upper hand. There are three primary vulnerable sectors on Ukraine's defensive line, with a potential fourth emerging according to some analysts. A Norwegian study recently showed that reversing this situation would require an investment of €522–838 billion over 2026–2029, but that not doing so would incur twice the costs. That being said, this assumes strategic inertia on the part of China/Russia. Sure, China are likely to maintain the fiction of non-involvement, but a drone/trade deal in which China supplies the parts for assembly in Russia is not at all infeasible. Indeed, it's already happening in a somewhat opaque fashion. The only difference would be sheer scale.
The Trump decision to aim for at least some concessions in a Ukraine peace deal is the right one. It may be completely unpalatable to Western audiences, but it is the moral decision to take given that there is no politically feasible route to turning the tide in favour of Ukraine, and her position can only weaken.
On tariffs, I would have tended to agree with you in some areas, specifically in relation to imports like steel or aluminium, but not finished goods. But then I did a deeper dive into steel because I was looking at the specific decline in support for Trump amongst Latinos, which it turns out is a result of knock-on effects in construction, which is a key source of employment for the Latino community. It turns out the Trump admin is using tariffs as a bridge to keep American steel viable, while the industry pivots to specialist steel production, a key area of viable profitability and growth going into 2030, and absolutely vital for strategic military purposes.
I don't know what you mean by power politics and dealmaking. Especially when one considers that, other than in relation to China, tariffs are often secondary goals, many of his dealmaking enterprises have been more successful than a conventional approach. African and Middle Eastern leaders recently asked Trump to diplomatically intervene in Sudan, and the house of Saud is far more favourably inclined to America than they were under Biden, during whose tenure there was some concern over realignment towards Russia.
One has to be a realist. Globalism is dead, and it was before Trump took office. The world has shifted from blueprint to scramble. That's a good thing, although it does entail risks. A supranational world order was turning out to be decidedly dystopian. One World international cooperation might have looked good for PR purposes, but nations have always operated in pursuit of narrow self-interest and always will, with even enlightened self-interest a rarity. If people in the West believed otherwise for a while, it was because they had drunk their own Kool Aid. This doesn't mean we should necessarily operate on the basic of political cynicism, but if we want to be more altruistic and kind, we should do so in the pursuit of the interests of own citizens. This also doesn't preclude non-zero sum cooperation, but the correct method for this approach is bilateralism.
Wow. That final quote could literally serve as an epitaph for Centrism.
Someone could send her a cyanide capsule for Christmas.