Loggiepuke

I’m going to address @JDVance arguments against @nfergus point by point. It's important Europeans engage with the rational wing of the Trump administration. For clarity I am not a “globalist” - I am a radical social democrat who wants to see Europe exert strategic autonomy, rearm to >5% of GDP and support Ukraine, if necessary allowing the US to disengage from European security through collaboration … >> This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say. [ ] Moralism is, on its own, useless faced with authoritarians like Putin and Xi. But the West’s claim to leadership in the world - going back much further than GHW Bush - had a moral basis. The rules based order was based on universalist principles which post-1945 states agreed to observe. If the USA is suddenly abandoning all principles in international relations, all other states - including democratic ones like the UK - have no choice but to recalibrate their approach in order to achieve/maintain freedom of action. >> For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today. [ ] The first argument constitutes a fail in any undergraduate essay. We cannot know that Putin would not have invaded if Trump was president. The Dec 21 Draft Treaties and the Summer 2021 essay betoken irrationalist, ethno-nationalism - strategically driven by the knowledge that Russia’s time as an oil/gas superpower is limited in this century. The second, that Biden/Zelensky had no pathway to victory is stronger but deserves challenge. For the past 12 months Western militaries have been discussing the technical means to inflict new kinds of air power and attrition on RU, and the Russian economy and war machine is faltering, above all at the level of personnel. >> And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base? [ ] A workable plan for Ukraine would be: an air defence shield over the NPPs; ramp up production of attrition producing weapons; clear the Black Sea of RU maritime presence, including Kilos. True the Europeans have a depleted industrial base but their economy is massively capable of sustaining Ukraine - if we can cohere, which is why Trump/Vance/Musk are working overtime to destroy our cohesion. >> Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history. [ ] I love the idea that America’s wars of choice in the era of unipolarity are “irrelevant history”. Tell that to those who perished in them. The reason liberals and social democrats, and Europeans in general try to learn from history is that our continent is always the battleground when “history” happens. One of the biggest things I learned as a journalist and a person was to study the people who make history. The greats, the duffers, the quiet jurists who invented human rights. Studying the history of fascism and far-right radicalisation allows me to predict where the Trump/Vance presidency will end domestically, and it doesn’t look good. >> President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts: Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance. [ ] This is important. It denies Europeans any agency in the creation of collective security we have achieved - for example the heroic decision by Finland and Sweden to join NATO. It is true that US strategic deterrence has been costly to the US, and that many European states are free riders on it. But why does he link that to “migration and censorship”? There are far fewer illegal migrants in the EU than in America? Censorship was never an issue until Musk became de facto president. EU and UK have strong laws against incitement, racism and strengthening regimes against disinformation (which Hegseth told Rammstein doesn’t exist). Answer: this is an attempt to irrupt the global far right into the European political space. We will calmly resist it. But if the USA wants to start leveraging deterrence as a way of forcing Europe to abandon its democratic culture and institutions, and to trigger a civil war with its Muslim minorities, it will be resisted, at the cost of the end of the Western alliance if needed. We have to get ready to be on our own quite quickly. >> Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing. [ ] "Currently" means it’s in play to pull the aid. Fine, we hear you. The rest is ill-informed. Seek a Pentagon briefing from a professional, not a kid with an X Box. >> Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict. [ ] But USA has thrown away its leverage over Putin by bending over for him in Riyadh and the Ukrainian people don’t actually care about leverage. They will never give in to Russian imperialism, no matter how much aid Trump/Vance threaten to pull. If Washington wants leverage over Zelensky, stop insulting him. >> Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it. [ ] No European diplomat would disagree. >> Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States. [ ] This is the nut graf. The tell. Trump/Vance want to shrink the US military and if I was in it, or a US citizen whose security relied on deterring Chinese aggression, that is the most alarming thing I would note. Trump/Vance want to draw down the Ukraine conflict because its “stressing their statecraft” - is a signal that the USA wants to be the weakest of the three major powers, not Primus inter pares. It is preparing to withdraw behind missile defence and domestic energy self-sufficiency while China shapes the 21st century. Maybe next time, put that on the manifesto. >> Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. [ ] At least the 1930s appeasers had a solid rationale. Some loved Hitler. Some were pessimistic about our prospects in a war. Some were genuinely playing for time and/or didn’t understand Hitler’s radicalisation in power. There is no solid rationale for appeasing Putin other than he has mind-captured part of the US tech/libertarian elite, and they actually share the Duginist principle of turning the world into ethno-nationalist monocultures. >> That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that. [ ] That’s what Vance and Hegseth clearly hope. But it is not clear that their rational-but-wrong stance is actually guiding Trump. Trump and Musk are on an ego trip without data points. Numerous adjutants to 20th century megalomaniacs found out too late that their leaders were not following a plan but an ideology. Vance would know this if he were prepared to read some “irrelevant history”. What we, as Europeans, need to do is calmly rearm. Calmly backstop Ukrainian security. Calmly create strategic autonomy - but we need to get real about the amounts of money and sacrifice it will involve. The tragedy is that all of @JDVance points could be made without the histrionics, and some have validity, and the Europeans are prepared do seek common ground.