MicroB

Well, no Retirement Visas for them.

Self confessed Fascist, OK. But he was a good little communist at one time, pulling out fingernails when in the KGB. And later on, ordering the murder of Russians. He was and is a nasty bit of work, which you seem to revel in. Interesting family history, born with a chip on his shoulder.

Racist

The UK owns and develops its warheads, but the Tridents belong to the US, However, the US has no power to prevent a Royal Navy sub from launching. Ultimately a sub captain operates from the Letter of Last Resort. Its a completely different process from the US. In the US, the President has sole authority. In he UK, the doctrine is that nuclear weapons are only launched after an attack. The PM, from Pindar, will issue the order. However, submarine captains in the event of an evident stroke on London, or a cessation of radio contact for 4 hours, may open the letters and read the instructions from the PM. The instructions might be to launch, not to retaliate or to find safe harbour in Australia. So the UK doctrine is not just national. UK policy includes a strike on an ally as a reason to launch. Sure, the US might protest afterwards, but it won't really matter.

What would stop him from firing the Judges? Loyal GOP politicians, right? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5140939-elon-musk-calls-judges-impeached/ Who would have thought that the series of events Ken Starr would unleash would lead to.

Not true. George Washington arguably should not be considered a politician, though he was in public office. But he was also a successful businessman, with one of the largest distillaries in the Colonies. Dwight Eisenhower was not a politician. Elsewhere in the world, other non-politicians have become Presidents or Heads of State, Silvio Berlisconi comes to mind. As does Vladimir Zelensky. Back in Giliead, Jimmy Carter made a pot of cash in the Peanut industry, also a businessman. Herbert Hoover made a ton of cahs from Burmese silver. Harry Truman had a mining business and later, mens clothing. Both Bushes made a pile of money in oil before they got into politics (Trump has been a politician now for 10 years). Interestingly, Bush Jr didn't inherit a family business. Like his dad, he started one from scratch. Never went bankrupt. Was reagan a politician; technically he was, but when he became President, the talk wasn't so much about he record as Governor, but more about his movie career. Trump is more of a showman than businessman. He creates the impression that he's a brilliant businessman, through that show where he created a Persona of a hands on businessman, which we all know now was complete cack. In many respects, he is probably a better actor than Ronnie Reagan. So he fooled you.

I think its become plain that Russian generals are a spineless lot. Early on in the war, if the Russian government was fairly conventional, the conventional thinking would have been "wiser heads would prevail", ie Generals, faced with the loss of a professional army that they had spent years trying to transform from the Soviety model, might have stepped in. But they didn't. Over the years, Putin has divided the Russian military, weakening it, by creating a National Guard, that reports to him, not the Defence Ministry, along with numerous other armed formations. The Generals who are promoted are not done so through military prowess, but through sychophancy. Think of the Generals surrounding Hitler in the bunker; all useless. In the Soviet Army, Zhukov became, justifiably, a hero. Stalin had him exiled to the far east. The Russian government is more like a criminal enterprise https://www.occrp.org/en/person-of-the-year/vladimir-putin If he does die of natural causes while in office, expect a scattering of the cockroaches as they depart with their loot, and a power vacuum, and likely disintegration of the Russian Federation as regional governors assert control. If its an internal coup, it won't be lead by his inner circle or the top brass. It will be something like the Wagner mutiny, which showed how someone with a bit more organisation, could have done it. They might be even more ultra-nationalist, and would try and reverse any peace accords. But, if I try and be optimistic, it will be younger Russian officers, working with some decent police officers trying to restore law and order, and not really concerned about the outside world. But a forlorn hope. Any chance we could get Anglian Windows in to renew the Kremlin's double glazing, preferably on the top floor.

Can you actually describe who this "Globalist Criminal Syndicate" is. Are they bankers of a certain faith?

How did the Afghans expel the Russians? It wasn't because of losses; the Soviet army could easily sustain the losses incurred. Domestic pressure and economic collapse. The reason Russia is occupying Donetsk right now is because they think its worth it, the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Postwar, their economy will be in the crapper. Whatever victory in occupied Ukraine will be pyrrhic. All the towns are trashed. Ukrainian towns are trashed as well. Buut Ukraine will no doubt see inward investment, through aide, reparations from Russian overseas reserves, even capitalist investment. Russian though still is governing a rump formerly Ukrainian population living in basically filth. Sanctions might ease a little for Russia (though not on individuals). But that will be moot. Russian occupation of these territories will never be recognised, no more than the Turkish occupation of North Cyprus has been. The cost to Russia in rebuilding will be enormous. On top of that, you will not see Western companies bidding for projects to rebuild the airport, the apartment blocks, the road system etc. Sure, the work might go to Chinese outfits with shonky building, charged at a premium. Before the war, most of the troops in the Russian army came from the far flung parts of the Federation, not so much from around St Petersburg and Moscow. Russian Youtuber "Vasya in the Hay" has done a superb job, over many years, exposing the appalling conditions Russian people in the non-metropolitan areas. Those soldiers going home, at the end of their contract, might well want to see something for all their sacrifice; the mobilisation policy was not unlike the British WW1 policy, almost Pals Battalions, with men from the same town, village being called up. And half of them dead or returning maimed. I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Home Fit for Heroes" type of movement. The Russians left Afghanistan partly as a result of pressure from the Mums. The Soviets were sensititive to public opinion. Putin, if anything, is even more conscious of the need to have people backing him, hence the amounts spent of propaganda, rock concerts and nighly speeches. But with the Russian treasury brassic, he has tough choices; pay off the returning constripts with free Ladas and Fridges, or rehome ex-Ukrainians. He was able to fund the rebuilding of Grozny through windfalls, that won't happen again, but also because the Chechens threatened to do one if he didn't (which illustrates what a weak man he is). The cost for Russia is retaining these territories could be either how many troops its willing to sacrifice (which is a lot, because Moscow literally doesn't care for an army made up of convicts and Asiatics), or a cost that might affect the stability of the regime. I won't forget how in 1991 Russian people stood up to the CPSU Coup Plotters, and faced down tanks. They did it before. Can do it again.

You're one of that sort. We all know what you mean by "Globalist Criminal Syndicate". Its code. Lots of words disguise it. Your lot lost in 1945. You don't get a second bite.

If Texas was to attack California, who would win? Interesting concept, given both states are home to significant military assets.

Russians don't like them. And it often turns out the most homophobic are in fact homosexuals themselves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-tells-europe-to-buy-american-weapons-to-keep-nato-strong?utm_content=business&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&leadSource=uverify wall US tells NATO members to spend more on defence and they must buy American. Fat chance. The US already waves around a remote kill switch for Trident and F35. Of course, Euopean defence companies can design towards more interperability (which already exists); US companies just need to send over the blueprints. Years of trust destroyed by Cadet Trumpf and Cpl Hamel.

I think, geographically speaking, you are incorrect. We all know why he called it what he did. Trump is an ignoramus when it comes to geography. When he (cleverly) coined the phrase "Make America Great Again", he didn't have in mind helping out the communists in Cuba, the Haitians, and the Mulattos in Costa Rica. For him "America" is unterchangeable with "United States of America". https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/baltics-vs-balkans-trump-reportedly-gets-the-two-confused-at-meeting-with-leaders-of-estonia-latvia-and-lithuania.html https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/12/trump-xi-syria-iraq-misspeak-fox-intv-orig-vstop-aa.cnn This wasn't a mistake of Iraq v Iran, but Iraq v Syria. https://qz.com/1222154/trump-said-he-talked-to-north-korea-but-it-was-actually-south-korean-president-moon-jae-in https://apnews.com/article/d5f94492f7db48ee9d453679fdc7a0fe https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-belgium-is-a-beautiful-city-hellhole-us-presidential-election-2016-america/ https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/13/trump-world-knowledge-diplomatic-774801 https://www.irishpost.com/news/president-donald-trump-ireland-uk-170525 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-britain-england-1055423 You are stretching credibility a bit with your wriggling. He ranamed it for Nationalistis reasons. You seem afraid to call him a nationalistic President. Remember the good old days when it was determined Dan Quayle should not be let anywhere near the Presidency because he couldn't spell Potato? Art imitating life

Some people still like Hitler, despite him being way before their time. When you discover that Putin is a raving Homosexual, your opinion will likely change. He doth protest too much. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-bans-image-hinting-putin-is-gay/28412245.html

Russia has been obsolete since they murdered the Tsar. The Russian Empire should have crumbled then, instead of continuing to oppress non-slavic people. Its a racist republic, built on a conceit that the rulers will always be slavs. A bit like the British ruling the Indians. Putin's madness will hasten the demise of the Russian Federation. There will be a new Russia, much smaller, more introspective, maybe more humble. More European.

And in the Arctic, the US is much closer to Russia or China than Western Europe.

But people like you are just Stalin loving Commies. Stalin was best buds with Hitler for a while.

Plus they needed help in Asia. NATO covers all NATO member north of the Tropic of Cancer. Dimwits say NATO only exists to protect Europe. But they are also mostly flat-earth believers. So when they look at a map of the world, they think Finland is some where near the right handside of the map and far from them. If Russia decided to take a pop at Alaska on the specious grounds America stole it from them by doing a deal with a criminal regime. if it were not the fact that Canada is a good friend and ally (despite the money the US owes Canada from 200+ years ago), the US woud find it quite challenging to get reinforcements there. Its way cheaper to base US troops in the benign environment of Europe, compared to the arduous climate of Alaska. Better not let Trump get wind of the territorial status of the Bering Sea, which was settled in 1893, that very nearly lead Great Britain going to war against the United States (the arbitration court settled in favour of Britain). Europe usefully deflects Russia's attention from one of its neighbours. NATO regularly conducts exercises and freedom of navifation drills in the Bering Sea (the bit where Sarah Palin could see Russia from)

It was an example how Germany, no through any deliberate ploy, was able to exploit division. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. It was repeated when Japan attacked the Americans and the British. Japan in 1941, should not have been able to defeat British and American forces. But it did. "Giving Signals" is so important. The UK and US will have teams of "Moscow Watchers", and ditto over in Moscow, pouring over hidden meanings in speeches. So-called diplomatic speak, when one side wants to convey a message in a non-overt way. But the American administration is currently chaotic and contradicts itself. Defenders will say thats a deliberate ploy "Keep 'Em Guessing". If it is, its extremely dangerous, because it leads to mistake and disaster. When the British government withdrew HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic, th Fascist Junta in Buenos Aires took that as a signal from the British government that it was no longer prepared to defend the Falkland Islands. Argentine Marines hit Stanley hoping to kill the Royal Marines in their bunks. But there was some intel, and the RM were able to get out, defend positions, and surrender in an orderly way without being murdered. London gave the wrong signals, and as a result, hundreds of men on both side died. On the upside, the Junta was overthrown, much to Alexander Haig's consternation. Ironically, the US government was giving mixed messaging over who it was backing, and it took a meber of the US political opposion to make very clear where the US stood. it was much appreciated. Trumpf is right that its unlikely Russia would have visciously attacked Ukraine in the way it did if it had received different signals from the West. But its clear, based on the actions of his previous administration, that he would have been any more clear in his messaging. Afghanistan is evidence of that, in his hopeless messaging to the Taliban and Russia, who was paying a bonus for every American soldier killed.

Well, Vance has realised that the speech he read at the Munich conference, written by a 25 year old aide googling, went down like a bucket of sick, is back pedaling, and no one likes him. There is suspicion that his whole MAGA character is an act, considering he considered Trump a Nazi. He is in fact, spineless and without a moral compass. Everyone else calling Trump a Nazi, yep, he'll jump on that bandwagon, because people will like him. Wants to be in with Trump, suddenly Trump is not a Nazi. Everyone likes him. There is supreme irony that a man married to an Indian women following a Hindoo ceremony, ranting on about freedom of religion and speech, and threats from immigrants, while his boss literally band news organisations for not renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, and nothing else, a boss who wants mosques placed under surveillance (because of people praying presumably). He rails on about immigrants, because then the German Nazis, the French Quislings and that bloke Farage on GBN will all like him. Because, hey, all immigrants are associated with mass killings, yet legitimate gun owners can never be associated with the legitimate gun owners who go on the rampage, quite regularly, in American schools. Maybe issues surrounding immigration could be considered once America starts cracking down on gun owners. He makes direct attacks on the government who is kindly hosting him in their country, then refuses to give the German leader the right of reply, man to man, afterwards. Coward, hence when he decided to shaft the US government for a student loan, he chose to become a US marine fluff piece specialist (biggest risk; paper cuts). And wanting to be liked, as a 30 something at uni, acted like a 20 year old frat boy, to be liked presumably. A Trumpf administration being in chaos is no surprise. It happened before. His lovers will defend it as part of Trumpf's genius 4D-Chess, and this is how he ran his companies. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German Lutheran pastor, died 8th April, 1945, Flossenberg Concentration Camp, by hanging. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/opinion/trump-executive-orders.html

Partly. The US defence spending is somewhat misleading. Much of the US defence budget is nothing to do with NATO commitments. A significant portion of the US defense is wasted. In 2023, a GAO audit found the US military had no idea where 60% of their assets were. I suspect some of those assets only existed on paper, And of the rest, if they don't know where the stuff is, they might as well not exist. Another portion of their budget goes in overseas military aid to prop up governments vital to the interests of the US, but really not at all important to NATO. The US expends significant amounts garrisioning forces in Okinawa and Korea, again, not really much to do with NATO Another aspect is nuclear weapons. About 10% of the US defence budget is spent on nuclear weapons. Within NATO, only the US, UK and France are armed with such. The UK's neclear deterrance cannot be considered truely independant. The Allied Powers required Germany to renounce neclear weapons, thus enshrining Europe's utter dependance on the US nuclear umbrella. In Afghanistan, prior to 2010, US forces were split between ISAF, the NATO led mission, and USFOR-A , which is the command that spent its time chasing around the mountains looking for a Yemeni. US contribution to ISAF at the time was 13,000 troops. Number of troops chasing a Yemeni; 18,000 While the NATO treaty required countries to spend adequate amounts on defence, its right that the level needed should be determined by each member. There is much "in kind" defence spending. The US has the advantage of using European property and facilities to preposition equipment, people facilties that it could not in the Homeland, to enable a war to be thought across the Plains of Germany and not the praries of Kansas. If not for Ramstein, Mildenhall, Redzikowo and others, the US would need to spend more in its defence budget. The purpose of these bases is not to protect the UK, Germany and Poland. For instance, US bases in the UK were vital to support US conflicts in the Middle East, infamously known for the attacks on Libya. Ramstein became familar to wounded US troops from the Middle East, providing vital medical aid is a manner that was of no benefit to Germany. If the US did not have access to Ascension and Diego Garcia, it would need to spend more on filling those capability gaps. The EU has about 1.4 million active servicemen. Europe as a whole has 1.6 million. Not including reserves. The US, not including reserves, has about 960,000 active troops.. There is clearly a disparity in spending, but what is the US doing with all that extra money. This is where that immortal line from the movie Independance Day about $30,000 toilet seats. A lot of defence spending is figuratively peed up a wall. How much was wasted on the Active Denial System, that they had to withdraw, after it came out that there were fears about the safety of eyeglass wearers (might boil your eyeballs), The military invested billions in autonomous truck systems 20 years ago which came to nothing. The military basically pays double to develop each new system put into service. Typically a spec is issued, and a competition run. 2 proposals are accepted, and each is funded by the government ("Programmes") and then a winner decided. Sometime, the Programme is fully funded, but nothing comes of it. As for US v European aid to Ukraine, that's also very complex. The US seemingly changes its mind day to day what it thinks its "owed". Currently it thinks Ukraine "owes" half a trillion USD. This comes down to accounting. Some charts show more US aid, others show more European aid. It comes down to accounting practice, so the numbers are meaningless. Much of the equiment donated to Ukraine is old. Old weaponry generally becomes less effective; it has a shelf life, then it has to disposed of. Disposing of out of data munitions is expensive. Second had clapped out old UK armoured vehicles 50 years old are trickling onto the market for pennies. The US DoD spends about $5 billion a year scrapping old equipment. The much vaunted Bradley was designed towards the end of the Vietnam war. The army didn't really want it, it entered service as part of pork barrel politics (something else that artificially inflates US defence spending). The average age of Bradleys in Ukraine is 40 year old. These have been pulled out of some storage yard in the US. They've gotten thousands of these things, and they are due to be replaced in 2029. 3700 in use, 2800 in storage. They don't have enough crews to operate them all. Other equipment seen; Dutch M113s. The M113 is over 60 years old. Javelins are lifed to 20 years, and have been in service since 1996. What was sent was all old stuff, that the US would have had to pay to replace anyhow. Same with Stormshadows; you can't use them if they are older than 12 years old, as you can't guarantee them. Germany is dragging Leopard 1s and Marders essentially from scrapyards. I think even Ferret armoured cars have been sent. If anything, a lot of the equipment sent represents a saving for the donors (on disposal costs). And its all being used to destroy the military of an adversary that they had all been purchased to defend against in the first place. Remenber NATO does not operate globally. Its restricted by treaty to north of the Tropic of Cancer. This is why there was no NATO support to the UK in 1982. The US is calculating its "bill" largely based on the replacement costs, but not replacing like for like, but replacing with better (more expensive). In general, the US is not making stuff to send to Ukraine. By presenting this as money owed, in effect, the US is expecting Ukraine to subsidise the US military. US aid of course benefits Ukraine, but arguably it also benefits the US, both from helping to degrade Russian capabilities now, thus providing for future defence savings (unless you are of the mind that the Allies should have maintained inflation adjusted levels of spend throughout the Cold War), and also because Russian success in Ukraine would also likely impact the US economically (Russia would then have large control of the global trade in grain, and hence prices),

Tankie propaganda. Churchill was never considered a dictator. The National Goverment went 10 years without election. Putin is a dying man. He will be irrelevant in the future of Ukraine, and whatever is left of Russia when its federation collapses. People like you would have thrown in the towel against the Nazis by 1942, because in 3 years, all that had happened was loss after loss after loss.

Not true. I love America. I have many friends in the US military. The problem is the country is now run by criminals and nitwits. A lot of the present issues in Western societies that are so corrosive to our civic dignity relate to the events of 2008-9, when a lot of ordinary people really suffered because of the actions of others, those others who seem to have never suffered (bank bailout). Those responsible for it are now in power; Trumpf is highly symbolic of that, because the financial crisis originated in the voodoo economics that is property. The man is in debt, but seemingly not. Musk is labeled as the world's richest man, but had to borrow money to buy Twitter. I've no idea how much actual money he has. These people exist in a world of debt ordinary people cannot relate to. It was a genuine crisis in capitalism that is still playing out, and we are not sure how that is ending. One casualty is likely the United Kingdom, which I expect to cease to exist by 2035. Along the way the British will fall victim to those political forces we so resisted in the 1930s, and I think the outcome will be horrific. The US is changing, from a country that had a well founded reputation of defending the weak and defenceless ("Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"), of equality in the face of adversity (King and many others were martyred in striving to improve the human condition), to something else. We have been in crisis for 20 years. MAGA is not a solution to that crisis. Its a symptom of that crisis (and its equivalents across Western politics) Those in power clearly don't understand what is happening, and that is fearful. Politicians didn't understand SubPrime, and yet based a lot of their policies around such voodoo economics, and "faith in the market", they are now turning to technology, without any notion what it is. Not a single politician can accurately describe what "AI" is. Neither can Musk, because he is a BullPooper, and has gotten where he is through masterful BullPoop. He is very good at raising money, which is more about if you can put on a good presentation than anything else. People actually thinks he wants to go to Mars. Now they are putting everything on AI. AI will re-industrialise America. AI will cure cancer. AI will make you rich But what if it does none of that? Lets be clear. I am big champion of AI. My job is all about AI, machine learning, neural networks, and whatever else you want to throw in the AI bucket. But those policy makers are clueless. And those clueless policy makers are destroying the reputation of America in their confusion. AI will cause the next crisis is society, and possibly an existential one. Not in a T1000 crushing the skulls of puny humans way, but a crisis in how society functions, and that society ceases to function, and we are thrown back 200 years. If we are looking for a Hollywood analogy, its less Termininator, and more Elysium. Or Children of Men, which doesn't have the Sci Fi guff. Its going to suck up so much treasure, and energy (literally and figuratively). Implicitly, it cannot help humanity as humanity is at the moment. The problem is data. AI needs data, a lot of it. Whoever has the best data "wins". Chinese data will only benefit China. US data will only benefit the US etc. So to win, China needs US data, the US needs Chinese data etc. For AI to "succeed", the notion of a nation is irrelevant. Which maybe points to how we might end up being governed. And then we end up at James Lovelock's notion of the Novocene, which goes beyond Musk's Technocracy ideology (Musk was raised in a family that believed in the Technocracy movement; the idea that elections are not needed if experts are in charge, working for the benefit of mankind). Lovelock's Novocene proposed a future where we are governed by AI, in a benevolent manner, like how we look after flowers in the garden. Electronics only really work well in the benign environment of the earth, which wouldn't exist without Life. Couple that with a VP stating he doesn't care about safety in AI, and he's setting his country up to be destroyed in that war. It will be literally defenceless by design, because a President ordered it. Its a bit like someone saying they are going to build up a merchant fleet, but we don't need a navy as building all those warships will just hold us back in buiding cargo carrier. Hence he hasn't a clue. I genuinely found his comments in germany disappointing, because I thought, irrespective of his personal moralities, he had some insight into the tech world that he previously invested in, and that part of his schtick is just an act until Trumpf croaks. But he revealed himself to be as thick as mince. And people like him will be in charge. So the events of 2008-9 has caused a crisis in leadeship competance, everywhere, with country after country making catastrophic strategic errors. The UK made a mistake in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. The US made a mistake in 2016, 2020, 2024. Russia made a potentially existential mistake in 2022. The EU, mistake after mistake. China similarly; it knew it was going to have a demographic crisis decades ago, and is facing a collapse in society. Utimately, I will point the finger at the Baby Boomers for not having enough kids. They benefited from the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, and then didn't capitalise on that, instead preferring to have longer and longer largely useless retirements. Instead, they should have been working longer and longer, as life expectancy increased. Maybe Europe and the US will be at war with each other in the next 10 years. I really hope not. We are all in for a rough ride, and not all of us will make it. I've no idea where it will end up.

The US is falling back on the mantra that it doesn't have friends, only interests. Cock-face Vance was right on one thing, Europe and the US are no longer aligned in terms of strategic alignment. The US has basically abandoned the principles of the Atlantic Charter, where the US and UK agreed that neither country would seek territorial expansion, and both countries would seek to free occupied countries from the Nazi jackboot, and allow them to determine their own form of government, Essentially, both agreed to deploy their power as a force for good globally, echoing the West Africa Squadron that Imperial Britain deployed for an astonishing 60 years to fight the scourge of slavery. Western European states, through the Coal Union, EEC, EC, and EU, broadly echoed that policy. People forgot that prior to 1939, the borders in Europe were not a settled thing. We fought and killed each other over lines drawn on a map. For Western Europe, that was all settled in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The final play was the collapse of Yugoslavia. Europe hasn't changed. The US, for now, has changed. A US First policy now means the US does not see itself as a Force for Good in the world. It no longer cares about how it is perceived. Everythin the US now does is guided by the principle; does this benefit the US. The US is now an expansionist country, seeking to expand the territories under its control, by force if necessary, as that will benefit the US. It has no interest in ending the Ukraine War for the benefit of Ukraine or indeed Russia. It only has an interest in ending that war because it benefits the US. If Roosevelt had taken that view, he would have determined it was not to the benefit of the US to send troops to Europe, or to fight across the Pacific, and that it would have been far better to make a deal with the Axis Powers. But he didn't take that view. His actions saved countless millions of the defenceless and oppressed. But for him there would not now be a Jewish people. In the new Dog eat Dog world, where does "Europe" go. its now seen as a terrible strategic mistake by the UK to exit the EU, as it assumed there would always be a strong transatlantic NATO to guarantee the security of Europe and the maritime trade routes north of the Tropic of Cancer, to offset a pan-European military. That's all gone now. This is how it must have felt after the collapse of the League of Nations. Friends became enemies. In WW1, Japan was an ally of the West. 20 years later, it was brutally massacring troops of its old friends. Europe gets criticised for how much it spends on the military. But that's not the only measure. Combined, Europe has 1.9 million active troops. The EU alone has 1.3 million. By comparison, the number of active US uniformed is less than 1 million. So how does Europe have more troops but spend less? I have no doubt Europe needs to spend more, but not at the primitive levels suggested by the Whitehouse Dimwit. The US is demanding Europe to increase spending inline with its own highly corrupt approach to defence procurement. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-probe-into-department-of-defense-after-failing-gao-audit-for-fifth-time/ They don't even know where 61% of their stuff actually is. I bet a lot of that stuff only exists on paper. They might as well not exist if they don't know where it is. The power of the US military might be exaggerated. If the US becomes a more introspective country, then they might end up looking at themselves more. And these things might come true. Having lived in the US for many years, looking back, I can recall statements of a sort I would never hear in my country. For instance, I heard it many times, from people in the South, the Midwest (eg Missouri), that Californians weren't considered "real Americans", that they were "wierd". In my country, there will be people who don't feel British; Scottish, Irish, Welsh nationalists, and that's fine. But I never heard it cut the other way; "the Scots aren't proper British because they vote differently to me", The Yugoslav Civil war genuinely shocked people. This was a sophisticated society, with an apparent rule of law, similar aspirations in life to me, and apparently living in a happy federation of equals. Of course it turned out some were more equal than others. What shocked was the barbarity, the return of scenes we had seen in WW2, of massacres, concentration camps, destroyed cities, in modern European cities, not in some 3rd World Hell Hole. Since then, we've become somewhat immune to such scenes, We shouldn't be. The Ukraine is another example; two sophisticated societies not reproducing WW2 but now WW1. I saw shocking inequalities in the US. In North Mississippi, seeing near Oxford what I can only describe as shanty towns was a shock. There is massive wealth inequality, I think greater than what you see in Europe, mostly based on race, but not entirely. MAGA is a symptom of that, But I think the MAGA politicians don't realise what they have unleashed, and they won't be able to control it, because, frankly, they can't deliver.