#Xi & Putin | No Limits

[xtruss]

Analysis: The China-Russia Axis Takes Shape

The bond has been decades in the making, but Russia’s war in Ukraine has tightened their embrace.

— September 11, 2023 | By Bonny Lin | Foreign Policy

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In July, nearly a dozen Chinese and Russian warships conducted 20 combat exercises in the Sea of Japan before beginning a 2,300-nautical-mile joint patrol, including into the waters near Alaska. These two operations, according to the Chinese defense ministry, “reflect the level of the strategic mutual trust” between the two countries and their militaries.

The increasingly close relationship between China and Russia has been decades in the making, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has tightened their embrace. Both countries made a clear strategic choice to prioritize relations with each other, given what they perceive as a common threat from the U.S.-led West. The deepening of bilateral ties is accompanied by a joint push for global realignment as the two countries use non-Western multilateral institutions—such as the BRICS forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)—to expand their influence in the developing world. Although neither Beijing nor Moscow currently has plans to establish a formal military alliance, major shocks, such as a Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan, could yet bring it about.

The cover of Foreign Policy's fall 2023 print magazine shows a jack made up of joined hands lifting up the world. Cover text reads: The Alliances That Matter Now: Multilateralism is at a dead end, but powerful blocs are getting things done."

China and Russia’s push for better relations began after the end of the Cold War. Moscow became frustrated with its loss of influence and status, and Beijing saw itself as the victim of Western sanctions after its forceful crackdown of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. In the 1990s and 2000s, the two countries upgraded relations, settled their disputed borders, and deepened their arms sales. Russia became the dominant supplier of advanced weapons to China.

When Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012, China was already Russia’s largest trading partner, and the two countries regularly engaged in military exercises. They advocated for each other in international forums; in parallel, they founded the SCO and BRICS grouping to deepen cooperation with neighbors and major developing countries.

When the two countries upgraded their relations again in 2019, the strategic drivers for much closer relations were already present. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 damaged its relations with the West and led to a first set of economic sanctions. Similarly, Washington identified Beijing as its most important long-term challenge, redirected military resources to the Pacific, and launched a trade war against Chinese companies. Moscow and Beijing were deeply suspicious of what they saw as Western support for the color revolutions in various countries and worried that they might be targets as well. Just as China refused to condemn Russian military actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine, Russia fully backed Chinese positions on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang. The Kremlin also demonstrated tacit support for Chinese territorial claims against its neighbors in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Since launching its war in Ukraine, Russia has become China’s fastest-growing trading partner. Visiting Moscow in March, Xi declared that deepening ties to Russia was a “strategic choice” that China had made. Even the mutiny in June by Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin that took his mercenary army almost to the gates of Moscow did not change China’s overall position toward Russia, though Beijing has embraced tactical adjustments to “de-risk” its dependency on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Building on their strong relationship, Xi and Putin released a joint statement in February 2022 announcing a “No Limits” strategic partnership between the two countries. The statement expressed a litany of grievances against the United States, while Chinese state media hailed a “new era” of international relations not defined by Washington. Coming only a few weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, enhanced relations were likely calculated by Moscow to strengthen its overall geopolitical position before the attack.

It’s not clear how much prior detailed knowledge Xi had about Putin’s plans to launch a full-scale war, but their relationship endured the test. If anything, the Western response to Russia’s war reinforced China’s worst fears, further pushing it to align with Russia. Beijing viewed Russian security concerns about NATO expansion as legitimate and expected the West to address them as it sought a way to prevent or stop the war. Instead, the United States, the European Union, and their partners armed Ukraine and tried to paralyze Russia with unprecedented sanctions. Naturally, this has amplified concerns in Beijing that Washington and its allies could be similarly unaccommodating toward Chinese designs on Taiwan.

Against the background of increased mutual threat perceptions, both sides are boosting ties with like-minded countries. On one side, this includes a reenergized, expanded NATO and its growing linkages to the Indo-Pacific, as well as an invigoration of Washington’s bilateral, trilateral, and minilateral arrangements in Asia. Developed Western democracies—with the G-7 in the lead—are also exploring how their experience deterring and sanctioning Russia could be leveraged against China in potential future contingencies.

On the other side, Xi envisions the China-Russia partnership as the foundation for shaping “the global landscape and the future of humanity.” Both countries recognize that while the leading democracies are relatively united, many countries in the global south remain reluctant to align with either the West or China and Russia. In Xi and Putin’s view, winning support in the global south is key to pushing back against what they consider U.S. hegemony.

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In the global multilateral institutions, China and Russia are coordinating with each other to block the United States from advancing agendas that do not align with their interests. The U.N. Security Council is often paralyzed by their veto powers, while other institutions have turned into battlegrounds for seeking influence. Beijing and Moscow view the G-20, where their joint weight is relatively greater, as a key forum for cooperation.

But the most promising venues are BRICS and the SCO, established to exclude the developed West and anchor joint Chinese-Russian efforts to reshape the international system. Both are set up for expansion—in terms of scope, membership, and other partnerships. They are the primary means for China and Russia to create a web of influence that increasingly ties strategically important countries to both powers.

The BRICS grouping—initially made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—is at the heart of Moscow and Beijing’s efforts to build a bloc of economically powerful countries to resist what they call Western “Unilateralism.” In late August, another six states, including Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, were invited to join the group. With their growing economic power, the BRICS countries are pushing for cooperation on a range of issues, including ways to reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar and stabilize global supply chains against Western calls for “Decoupling” and “De-risking.” Dozens of other countries have expressed interest in joining BRICS.

The SCO, in contrast, is a Eurasian grouping of Russia, China, and their friends. With the exception of India, all are members of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The accession of Iran in July and Belarus’s membership application put the SCO on course to bring China’s and Russia’s closest and strongest military partners under one umbrella. If the SCO substantially deepens security cooperation, it could grow into a counterweight against U.S.-led Coalitions.

Both BRICS and the SCO, however, operate by consensus, and it will take time to transform both groups into cohesive, powerful geopolitical actors that can function like the G-7 or NATO. The presence of India in both groups will make it difficult for China and Russia to turn either into a staunchly anti-Western outfit. The diversity of members—which include democracies and autocracies with vastly different cultures—means that China and Russia will have to work hard to ensure significant influence over each organization and its individual members.

What’s next? Continued Sino-Russian convergence is the most likely course. But that is not set in stone—and progress can be accelerated, slowed, or reversed. Absent external shocks, Beijing and Moscow may not need to significantly upgrade their relationship from its current trajectory. Xi and Putin share similar views of a hostile West and recognize the strategic advantages of closer alignment. But they remain wary of each other, with neither wanting to be responsible for or subordinate to the other.

Major changes or shocks, however, could drive them closer at a faster pace. Should Russia suffer a devastating military setback in Ukraine that risks the collapse of Putin’s regime, China might reconsider the question of substantial military aid. If China, in turn, finds itself in a major Taiwan crisis or conflict against the United States, Beijing could lean more on Moscow. During a conflict over Taiwan, Russia could also engage in opportunistic aggression elsewhere that would tie China and Russia together in the eyes of the international community, even if Moscow’s actions were not coordinated with Beijing.

A change in the trajectory toward ever closer Chinese-Russian ties may also be possible, though it is far less likely. Some Chinese experts worry that Russia will always prioritize its own interests over any consideration of bilateral ties. If, for instance, former U.S. President Donald Trump wins another term, he could decrease U.S. support for Ukraine and offer Putin improved relations. This, in turn, could dim the Kremlin’s willingness to support China against the United States. It’s not clear if this worry is shared by top Chinese or Russian leaders, but mutual distrust and skepticism of the other remain in both countries.

— This article appears in the Fall 2023 issue of Foreign Policy. | Bonny Lin, the Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[worldinyourpalm]

'नो लिमिट्स फ्रेंडशिप': चीन के शी जिनपिंग ने रूस की यात्रा पूरी की, रणनीतिक और आर्थिक संबंधों को मजबूत किया | 'No Limits Friendship': China's Xi Jinping concludes his tour to Russia and forges closer geopolitical and commercial links;

द्विपक्षीय व्यापार उल्लेखनीय रूप से बढ़ाने का वादा

महत्वपूर्ण रूप से, बीजिंग और मॉस्को ने 2030 तक द्विपक्षीय व्यापार को "उल्लेखनीय रूप से बढ़ाने" का वादा किया, जिसमें पुतिन ने चीनी युआन के व्यापक उपयोग के लिए न केवल $ को कमजोर करने के लिए, बल्कि सख्त अमेरिकी प्रतिबंधों के आसपास काम करने के लिए भी कहा।

बीजिंग: 

चीन के राष्ट्रपति शी चिनफिंग मॉस्को राज्य की अपनी हाई-प्रोफाइल यात्रा के बाद बुधवार को चीन लौट आए, जहां उन्होंने यूक्रेन पर अपने आक्रमण को लेकर अलग-थलग पड़े रूसी राष्ट्रपति व्लादिमीर पुतिन के साथ एकजुटता का प्रदर्शन किया और संयुक्त रूप से "नई विश्व व्यवस्था" का आह्वान किया। लेकिन पूर्वी यूरोपीय देश में संघर्ष को समाप्त करने के लिए कोई सफलता नहीं मिली।

शी और पुतिन के बीच सोमवार और मंगलवार देर रात तक बैठकें हुईं, जिनमें से प्रत्येक ने दूसरे को "पुराना दोस्त" कहा, बीजिंग और मॉस्को के बीच संबंधों को और मजबूत किया, जो पहले से ही उनकी पश्चिम-विरोधी दुश्मनी से एकजुट थे और "कोई सीमा नहीं दोस्ती" से बंधे थे। फरवरी, 2022 में यूक्रेन पर हमला करने से कुछ दिन पहले पुतिन के बीजिंग जाने पर घोषित किया गया।

शी और पुतिन के बीच व्यक्तिगत तालमेल

राजकीय यात्रा के दौरान, उनके संबंधित राज्य मीडिया कवरेज के फोकस के तहत, शी और पुतिन के बीच व्यक्तिगत तालमेल था, जो पिछले 10 वर्षों में 40 बार एक-दूसरे से मिल चुके हैं।

रूस के यूक्रेन पर जारी आक्रमण पर मास्को के लिए बीजिंग के प्रत्यक्ष समर्थन के बारे में बात करने वाले शी की ओर से कोई बयान नहीं आया, लेकिन इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं था कि बीजिंग युद्ध पर कहां खड़ा है।

पुतिन के लिए, शी की यात्रा हाथ में एक गोली थी, भले ही उन्हें पश्चिम द्वारा अछूत के रूप में त्याग दिया गया हो; इसने और भी अधिक मदद की कि शी ने पुतिन के "मजबूत नेतृत्व" का उल्लेख किया।

नेताओं ने दो संयुक्त बयान जारी किए, जिनमें से एक आर्थिक सहयोग पर केंद्रित था और दूसरा उनकी रणनीतिक साझेदारी को मजबूत करने पर था।

आर्थिक सहयोग में प्राथमिकताओं पर 2030 पूर्व विकास योजना

चीनी आधिकारिक मीडिया ने कहा कि शी और पुतिन "...अच्छे-पड़ोसी, दोस्ती और जीत-जीत सहयोग के सिद्धांतों के आधार पर द्विपक्षीय संबंधों को मजबूत करने के साथ-साथ एक नए युग के लिए चीन-रूस व्यापक समन्वय की रणनीतिक साझेदारी को गहरा करने के लिए सहमत हुए हैं।"

दोनों नेताओं ने "चीन-रूस आर्थिक सहयोग में प्राथमिकताओं पर 2030 पूर्व विकास योजना" के तहत कई क्षेत्रों में सहयो��� करने पर सहमति व्यक्त की।

महत्वपूर्ण रूप से, बीजिंग और मॉस्को ने 2030 तक द्विपक्षीय व्यापार को "उल्लेखनीय रूप से बढ़ाने" का वादा किया, जिसमें पुतिन ने चीनी युआन के व्यापक उपयोग के लिए न केवल $ को कमजोर करने के लिए, बल्कि सख्त अमेरिकी प्रतिबंधों के आसपास काम करने के लिए भी कहा।

आरआईए नोवोस्ती समाचार सेवा के अनुसार, पुतिन ने कहा, "हम रूस और एशियाई देशों, अफ्रीका, लैटिन अमेरिका के बीच बस्तियों में चीनी युआन के उपयोग के लिए हैं," इस अभ्यास को और प्रोत्साहित किया जाना चाहिए........

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The GOP is not the party of workers

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/13/occupy-the-democrats/#manchin-synematic-universe

The GOP says it's the "party of the working class" and indeed, they have promoted numerous policies that attack select groups within the American ruling class. But just because the party of unlimited power for billionaires is attacking a few of their own, it doesn't make them friends to the working people.

The best way to understand the GOP's relationship to worker is through "boss politics" – that's where one group of elites consolidates its power by crushing rival elites. All elites are bad for working people, so any attack on any elite is, in some narrow sense, "pro-worker." What's more, all elites cheat the system, so any attack on any elite is, again, "pro-fairness."

In other words, if you want to prosecute a company for hurting workers, customers, neighbors and the environment, you have a target-rich environment. But just because you crush a corrupt enterprise that's hurting workers, it doesn't mean you did it for the workers, and – most importantly – it doesn't mean that you will take workers' side next time.

Autocrats do this all the time. Xi Jinping engaged in a massive purge of corrupt officials, who were indeed corrupt – but he only targeted the corrupt officials that made up his rivals' power-base. His own corrupt officials were unscathed:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181222163946/https://peterlorentzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Lorentzen-Lu-Crackdown-Nov-2018-Posted-Version.pdf

Putin did this, too. Russia's oligarchs are, to a one, monsters. When Putin defenestrates a rival – confiscates their fortune and sends them to prison – he acts against a genuinely corrupt criminal and brings some small measure of justice to that criminal's victims. But he only does this to the criminals who don't support him:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/29/1088886554/how-putin-conquered-russias-oligarchy

The Trump camp – notably JD Vance and Josh Hawley – have vowed to keep up the work of the FTC under Lina Khan, the generationally brilliant FTC Chair who accomplished more in four years than her predecessors have in 40. Trump just announced that he would replace Khan with Andrew Ferguson, who sounds like an LLM's bad approximation of Khan, promising to deal with "woke Big Tech" but also to end the FTC's "war on mergers." Ferguson may well plow ahead with the giant, important tech antitrust cases that Khan brought, but he'll do so because this is good grievance politics for Trump's base, and not because Trump or Ferguson are committed to protecting the American people from corporate predation itself:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/12/the-enemy-of-your-enemy/#is-your-enemy

Writing in his newsletter today, Hamilton Nolan describes all the ways that the GOP plans to destroy workers' lives while claiming to be a workers' party, and also all the ways the Dems failed to protect workers and so allowed the GOP to outlandishly claim to be for workers:

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/you-cant-rebrand-a-class-war

For example, if Ferguson limits his merger enforcement to "woke Big Tech" companies while ending the "war on mergers," he won't stop the next Albertson's/Kroger merger, a giant supermarket consolidation that just collapsed because Khan's FTC fought it. The Albertson's/Kroger merger had two goals: raising food prices and slashing workers' wages, primarily by eliminating union jobs. Fighting "woke Big Tech" while waving through mergers between giant companies seeking to price-gouge and screw workers does not make you the party of the little guy, even if smashing Big Tech is the right thing to do.

Trump's hatred of Big Tech is highly selective. He's not proposing to do anything about Elon Musk, of course, except to make Musk even richer. Musk's net worth has hit $447b because the market is buying stock in his companies, which stand to make billions from cozy, no-bid federal contracts. Musk is a billionaire welfare queen who hates workers and unions and has a long rap-sheet of cheating, maiming and tormenting his workforce. A pro-worker Trump administration could add labor conditions to every federal contract, disqualifying businesses that cheat workers and union-bust from getting government contracts.

Instead, Trump is getting set to blow up the NLRB, an agency that Reagan put into a coma 40 years ago, until the Sanders/Warren wing of the party forced Biden to install some genuinely excellent people, like general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who – like Khan – did more for workers in four years than her predecessors did in 40. Abruzzo and her colleagues could have remained in office for years to come, if Democratic Senators had been able to confirm board member Lauren McFerran (or if two of those "pro-labor" Republican Senators had voted for her). Instead, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Synema rushed to the Senate chamber at the last minute in order to vote McFerran down and give Trump total control over the NLRB:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/11/schumer-nlrb-vote-manchin-sinema

This latest installment in the Manchin Synematic Universe is a reminder that the GOP's ability to rebrand as the party of workers is largely the fault of Democrats, whose corporate wing has been at war with workers since the Clinton years (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc). Today, that same corporate wing claims that the reason Dems were wiped out in the 2024 election is that they were too left, insisting that the path to victory in the midterms and 2028 is to fuck workers even worse and suck up to big business even more.

We have to take the party back from billionaires. No Dem presidential candidate should ever again have "proxies" who campaign to fire anti-corporate watchdogs like Lina Khan. The path to a successful Democratic Party runs through worker power, and the only reliable path to worker power runs through unions.

Nolan's written frequently about how bad many union leaders are today. It's not just that union leaders are sitting on historically unprecedented piles of cash while doing less organizing than ever, at a moment when unions are more popular than they've been in a century with workers clamoring to join unions, even as union membership declines. It's also that union leaders have actually endorsed Trump – even as the rank and file get ready to strike:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yz_Z08KwKgFt3QvnV8nEETSgTXM5eZw5ujT4BmQXEWk/edit?link_id=0&can_id=9481ac35a2682a1d6047230e43d76be8&source=email-invitation-to-cover-amazon-labor-union-contract-fight-rally-cookout-on-monday-october-14-2024-2&email_referrer=email_2559107&email_subject=invitation-to-cover-jfk8-workers-authorize-amazon-labor-union-ibt-local-1-to-call-ulp-strike&tab=t.0

The GOP is going to do everything it can to help a tiny number of billionaires defeat hundreds of millions of workers in the class war. A future Democratic Party victory will come from taking a side in that class war – the workers' side. As Nolan writes:

If billionaires are destroying our country in order to serve their own self-interest, the reasonable thing to do is not to try to quibble over a 15% or a 21% corporate tax rate. The reasonable thing to do is to eradicate the existence of billionaires. If everyone knows our health care system is a broken monstrosity, the reasonable thing to do is not to tinker around the edges. The reasonable thing to do is to advocate Medicare for All. If there is a class war—and there is—and one party is being run completely by the upper class, the reasonable thing is for the other party to operate in the interests of the other, much larger, much needier class. That is quite rational and ethical and obvious in addition to being politically wise.

Nolan's remedy for the Democratic Party is simple and straightforward, if not easy:

The answer is spend every last dollar we have to organize and organize and strike and strike. Women are workers. Immigrants are workers. The poor are workers. A party that is banning abortion and violently deporting immigrants and economically assaulting the poor is not a friend to the labor movement, ever. (An opposition party that cannot rouse itself to participate on the correct side of the ongoing class war is not our friend, either—the difference is that the fascists will always try to actively destroy unions, while the Democrats will just not do enough to help us, a distinction that is important to understand.)

Cosigned.

[mariacallous]

Reflecting the instincts of a cold war veteran, Joe Biden’s strategy was familiar: contain the conflict. When the US president spoke in Warsaw in March 2022, a month after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he drew a red line at Vladimir Putin’s toes. “Don’t even think about moving on one single inch of Nato territory,” he warned.

The western allies would provide weapons and aid to Kyiv, impose sweeping economic and financial sanctions on Moscow and reduce the rouble to “rubble”, Biden vowed. Though not a Nato member, the US would help Ukraine win this symbolic battle for freedom and democracy. But it would not directly confront Russia unless Russia first attacked Nato.

Thirty months on, Biden’s containment strategy is failing miserably. Like an untreated cancer, Ukraine’s crisis metastasises uncontrollably. Far from being confined to the mud and ice of the Donbas, the war’s spreading, toxic fallout grows more globally destructive by the day. It contaminates and blights everything it touches. True, a “hot” war between Russia and Nato has been avoided so far. Yet Polish and Romanian territory has been affected by stray missiles and maritime attacks. The entire Black Sea region is embroiled, as is Belarus. Putin claims that the west is already waging war on Russia and threatens it with nuclear weapons. Propagandists vow to vaporise Poland.

The crisis has triggered US-Europe splits in Nato and within the EU. Rows flare over sending troops and long-range missiles to Ukraine, inviting Kyiv to join the alliance, and forging a separate European “defence identity”. France’s newly hawkish stance is cancelled out by German caution.

Neutral Sweden and Finland were panicked into joining Nato. The Baltic republics fear renewed Russian aggression. Hungary and Serbia appease the Kremlin. Italy wavers. No one feels safe.

The war is fuelling right-left political extremism as support surges for Putin’s paid-for populist apologists. In Moldova, last weekend’s EU membership referendum was grossly distorted by what its president, Maia Sandu, called a huge bribery operation by “criminal groups working together with foreign forces” – namely, Kremlin stooges.

Now Moscow is eyeing this weekend’s elections in Georgia where it covertly conspires to ensure pro-western parties lose. Such hybrid warfare – subversion, disinformation, influence operations, cyber-attacks, scams, online trolling – has mushroomed worldwide since 2022, as authoritarian regimes follow Russia’s lead.

Failure to contain the war is encouraging seismic geopolitical shifts, most notably the China-Russia “no-limits” partnership. China’s president, Xi Jinping, gets cheap oil; ostracised Putin gets sanctions-busting dual-use tech plus diplomatic backing. But it’s so much more than that. At last week’s Brics summit – hosted by Putin – Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa were joined by Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and, alarmingly, Nato member Turkey (among many others). Putin envisages a global anti-western alliance, Xi a post-American, China-led 21st-century new world order.

These are no idle dreams. For many second-tier countries, the west’s condemnation of Russian aggression in Ukraine and its refusal to condemn, and active facilitation of, Israeli aggression in Palestine represents an intolerable double standard. Some are switching sides.

What better illustrates the unbounded nature of this inexorably expanding conflict than the startling news that North Korea, in a breath-taking counterpoint to US and UK military intervention in the Korean war nearly 75 years ago, is deploying troops to the Ukraine theatre?

And how appalling that Donald Trump can cynically use Ukraine’s “forever war” to persuade US voters that Democrats like Kamala Harris cannot control a chaotic world, Nato is a con-trick run by freeloading Europeans and the UN is useless.

The war diverts attention from other grave conflicts, from Sudan to Myanmar. Attacks on Kyiv’s grain exports have caused food shortages and price spikes hurting poorer countries. It disrupts cooperative action on climate; indeed, it has greatly increased greenhouse gas emissions While Putin, indicted for war crimes, goes unpunished, respect for international law and the UN charter plummets. Impunity flourishes.

The war’s enormous economic costs are escalating. The World Bank estimates that the first two years caused $152bn (£117bn) of direct damage in Ukraine. The UN predicts $486bn is needed for recovery and reconstruction. Each day, the totals rise. Meanwhile, Russia constructs shadowy international networks – an officially approved black market – to circumvent sanctions and undermine dollar hegemony.

The cost in lives is heartbreaking. Conservative UN estimates suggest that about 10,000 civilians have been killed and twice that number injured. More than 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers may have died. Russian military casualties are an estimated 115,000 killed and 500,000 wounded. The cost to Russian society of intensifying authoritarianism, corruption and suppression of dissent and free media is immeasurable.

Ukraine has not lost the war, which is a remarkable feat in itself. But it is not winning, either. Western support is weakening, despite the rhetoric; Russian forces advance. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “victory plan” has few takers. Winter is coming.

How much of this could have been prevented? Some developments, such as the China-Russia axis and rising rightwing populism, were happening anyway. The war simply accelerated them. But a lot of the wider damage was avoidable, wholly or in part.

In Warsaw, Biden was candid, almost boastful: back in January 2022, US intelligence knew that the invasion was imminent. He said he had repeatedly warned Putin it would be a big mistake. Yet, given his passionate belief that Ukraine’s fight for democracy and freedom has vital universal significance, surely what Biden should have done is told Russia’s dictator bluntly: “Forget it. Don’t invade. Or else you will find yourself fighting a better-armed, more powerful Nato.”

It’s called deterrence. It’s what Nato is for. Containment was never enough. Putin might still not have listened. But coward that he is, he probably would have – and saved everyone a world of pain.

[tomorrowusa]

Never mind the 22nd amendment. Some Trumpsters are already talking about a THIRD Trump term.

The American Conservative magazine published an article last week in which the author, Peter Tonguette, argued that Trump should be able to run for a third term in office in 2028. This drew some attention in non-Trump circles as a potential trial balloon by Project 2025, the authoritarian policy agenda that is guiding Trumpworld right now. Tonguette argued that Trump’s victory in the GOP primary contest this year shows that voters still support him—and that they should be allowed to do so indefinitely. “As the primary season has shown us, the Republicans have not moved on from Trump—yet the Twenty-second Amendment works to constrain their enthusiasm by prohibiting them from rewarding Trump with re-election four years from now,” he wrote, perhaps getting ahead of himself a bit. I do not doubt that Trump would run for a third term if he could. He has addressed the possibility before, suggesting in 2020 that he should get to run for one “because they spied on my campaign,” referring to his political opponents. And at a closed-door fundraiser in 2018, Trump also favorably referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping for eliminating the two-term limit in that country. “He’s now president for life, president for life, and he’s great,” he reportedly told his supporters. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

Maybe Trump's campaign slogan for 2028 should be: Make America Belarus. The dictator of Belarus, a Putin satellite, has been using rigged elections to remain in power since 1994.

Never mind the US Constitution. Trump's trained seals on the US Supreme Court will gladly find some loophole allowing him to be president in perpetuity.

If somebody says he wants to be a dictator, believe him – especially if he's already a big fanboy of despots like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Xi Jinping.

It's almost always easier to prevent a dictator from taking power than it is to get rid of one who is already in power.

[misfitwashere]

Veep Stakes

Will Vance be Sacrificed?

Timothy Snyder

Jul 24, 2024

In a normal presidential campaign, such as the one Vice-President Kamala Harris is running, “veepstakes” is a harmless play on the word “sweepstakes,” invoking a friendly competition to become a vice-presidential nominee.  One can enjoy thinking about matches between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and wonder how it will all turn out.

But “stakes” can be harder, or sharper.  One can be burned at a stake, sacrificed on a stake, or killed by a stake through the heart.  For Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, this election has morbid overtones.

Trump’s candidacy is a mortality play.  He wants to die in the White House.  Whatever else he might say, or whatever else his followers might believe, this is the essential reality.   Old-guy dictatorship involves funeral planning.  When Trump says that he admires a Putin or a Xi, what he means is “that man will die in office and not in jail.”

Since Trump is thinking about death, Vance must as well.  In considering a place on the ticket, Vance was reasoning from different premises than (for example) Andy Beshear.  If Kamala Harris asks Beshear to join her on the ticket, he can imagine running for president in 2032.  Vance, by contrast, knows that Trump, so long as he lives, will never voluntarily get out of the way.

A Vance who wishes to be president needs Trump to win in November, stay alive long enough to take office in January, and then perish.  One does not have to be an actuary to understand why Vance might think that this is a good bet. 

Vance was the choice of the tech broligarchs – Elon Musk, David Sacks, Peter Thiel.  Vance was also the preferred option of the Kremlin, whose propaganda line Musk and Sacks tend to follow. Had Trump chosen anyone but Vance, he could have been sure of that person’s loyalty to him.  But Vance is a tech brotegé, not a Trump client.

In the heady atmosphere of Milwaukee, the selection of Vance could seem like a win for everyone.  Trump gets the money he needs from the broligarchs (e.g. a promise of $45 million a month from Musk), who happily contemplate installing their guy as his successor.  Trump believed that he was running against Joe Biden and that he was going to win easily.  Vance could make his private calculations about Trump’s longevity, and go along with the show. Vance was endorsed by the Russian foreign ministry for his pro-surrender foreign policy.

A week later, with Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, everything looks different.  The Harris candidacy is bad for Putin and the broligarchs, but not fatal.  Putin wants Trump to win, because that is his only hope of winning in Ukraine.  But should Trump lose the election, Putin will figure out some other way of saving himself.  Russian propagandists are already turning against Vance. The broligarchs would like to run the American government.  Should they fail, though, nothing bad will happen to them.  Now Musk denies promising the monthly $45 million to Trump’s campaign.

The billionaires are entirely safe. Trump and Vance are the ones who are exposed.  Now that Trump recognizes that the election will be competitive, Vance’s weaknesses matter to him. 

Vance’s skillset is limited.  He was more articulate when he opposed Trump than in his present support. Vance saying that Trump is an “idiot” who could be “America’s Hitler” is hard to forget. On the campaign trail, Vance channels broligarch grievance and mocks everyone else.  This is backroom back-slapping delight when only the billionaires’ voices matter, as in Milwaukee. 

But in an election, other voices count. 

Vance’s policy approach is not very resonant. He specializes in weak-man politics.  His claim is that government is always impotent.  This does not work together with Trump’s strong-man fantasy.  Trump’s followers want to believe that the system can be trashed and they can still get what they want from it -- a bit of magical thinking that Trump’s charisma enables. 

Vance can’t pull that off.  When he explains that government is pointless, it is a bit too clear that what he means is that broligarchs should run wild at home while dictators should push Americans around abroad.  That is not actually what voters want to hear, including Republican voters.  Sacks found that out when he read aloud Putin’s talking points from the stage in Milwaukee.

Trump must now run an uphill campaign, pulling Vance along behind him. 

Vance is from Ohio.  Having a Buckeye on the ticket will not help Trump in neighboring Michigan or Pennsylvania, states he must win.  And if Ohio is in play, the Trump campaign has deep problems.  When Vance held a rally in his hometown, a local ally threatened “civil war” after a lost election. This does not express confidence.

Vance could even hurt in Ohio itself.  

Reproductive rights were always going to be central to this campaign; Kamala Harris is certain to raise it more clearly than Biden would have.  Vance is infamous for his (vulgar and public) support for a national abortion ban.  Last November, Ohio voters codified reproduction rights in the state constitution by referendum – by a vote of 57% in favor.  This was a personal defeat for Vance, who characterized the pro-choice Ohio majority as “sociopaths” who “murder their own children.”

Trump has been played by unreliable people, which could be uncomfortable for Vance.  And Vance must understand that the Harris candidacy alters his own situation. 

Instead of coasting to victory with Trump and waiting for him to die, Vance now must contemplate what it would mean to lose alongside Trump in November -- in an election angry Republicans have been trained to believe would be a landslide.  Trump cannot blame the broligarchs or Putin, since he cannot admit that he needed the money and support of others.  That leaves Vance as the scapegoat. 

Vance must now imagine a world, about three months from now, in which Trump instructs his followers that Vance is to blame.  Trump has driven Republicans out of the party by stochastic violence.  He was ready to sacrifice the life of his last vice-president.  If Vance leaves now, he will feel the heat for a moment, but can go back to his prior life.  The longer Vance waits to leave the Trump ticket, the greater the risk of a scenario involving a stake.

The necropolitics is no one’s fault but that of the people concerned.  Republicans did not have to nominate an aged coup-plotting felon. The broligarchs did not have to install their candidate to succeed a deceased Trump. And Vance did not have to join Trump’s ticket. 

On the Democratic side, the picture is much brighter. Kamala Harris seeks her vice-presidential nominee, following the familiar rules of the gentle version of veepstakes.  It is fun to follow.  Maybe Kelly? Shapiro?  Or Buttigieg?  Or Whitmer? Who knows? It is refreshing to imagine two candidates wishing each other well, having complementary policies, working towards a better future, towards life.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Noah Berlatsky at Public Notice:

During Donald Trump’s first term, Republicans dismissed well-founded concerns that he wouldn’t leave office willingly as “silly.” And then January 6 happened. Trump’s coup attempt wasn’t an aberration. If he returns to power, it’s likely he and his minions will push to abolish the 22nd Amendment and its maximum of two terms for presidents — in fact Project 2025 is already scheming to do just that. And you don’t have to take it from us. Just listen to the man himself. Last weekend, Trump gave a speech to the NRA where he openly mused about serving three or more terms. “FDR, 16 years … he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three terms or two terms, you tell me?” Trump here, as elsewhere, presents his assault on the Constitution and rule of law as a kind of semi-coherent joke. But looking at his history and plans for the future, his fantasies about making himself ruler for life don’t seem very funny.

Trump loves fantasizing about becoming America’s Putin

After much debate among the founders, presidential terms were originally fixed as four year terms with no limits on reelection. George Washington, the first president, resigned after his second term rather than seeking reelection. The presidents who followed Washington all followed his lead and did not seek a third term. Over the years there was considerable debate about whether to formalize the two-term norm. The question took on additional urgency when Franklin Roosevelt sought and won a third term in 1940 and then a fourth in 1944 before dying in office in 1945. Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats were determined that there should never be another FDR, and they managed to pass the 22nd Amendment, which formally imposed a two-term limit. Whether you think that’s good policy or not, Trump’s interest in serving three or more terms has nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with his desire to become America’s Putin.

Trump’s signaled for years that he likes the idea of holding onto the presidency for as long as he can. While he was in office, he floated the idea that he could serve more than two terms semi-regularly. During a July 2019 Turning Point USA conference in DC, for instance, someone yelled out from the crowd, “President for life!” Trump chuckled and replied, “That’s what they’re afraid of, you know.”

Trump kept dreaming of an eternal MAGA rein as the 2020 campaign heated up. In January of that year, during a CNBC interview, Trump mused, “President Xi — president for life, okay? It’s not bad.” In February, immediately after being acquitted in his first impeachment, Trump shared a video which showed campaign posters for a Trump 2044 run — essentially a fantasy of rule by Trump eternal. By August 2020, Trump came up with a reason he deserved three terms — the Russia investigation. He said during a rally in Wisconsin that he’d win a second term “and then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”

[...]

Of course, no one spied on Trump’s campaign; he was complaining because the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election implicated his campaign. In any case, the Constitution doesn’t give presidents a “redo” term if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly. Trump was, as usual, just rummaging around in his backbrain for some garbled excuse to justify his limitless lust for power. Trump sycophants have picked up the hint and started to lay the “intellectual” groundwork for giving Trump the third (and fourth, and fifth) term he wants. In March, Peter Tonguette at the American Conservative argued that the 22nd Amendment is an “arbitrary restraint on presidents who serve nonconsecutive terms.”

[...]

Americans don’t like dictatorship. Remind them of that.

Trump running in 2028, and 2032, and on and on, MAGA without end, is a terrifying thought — and not just for Democratic partisans. Democratic and Republican strategists have both found that undecided voters are very concerned that Trump would not step down in 2028. It’s a fear that consistently pushes voters towards Biden. Democrats have so far not focused much attention on the possibility that Trump will never leave office. But maybe they should. Forcing Trump to talk more about his 2028 plans can only discredit him. Voters need to be reminded that the only way to ensure that Trump doesn’t rule for life is to vote him down now, before he gets into position to abolish the horserace, the Constitution, and any vestige of democracy we have left.

Noah Berlatsky wrote in Public Notice that Donald Trump’s plan to circumvent the 2-term limit for the Presidency isn’t a joke, but a serious authoritarian power grab to turn our nation into Russia.

[beardedmrbean]

While China remains outwardly sanguine on North Korea, subtle differences in their diplomatic relations this year may signal rising frustration with Kim Jong Un's deepening military cooperation with Russia.

Why It Matters

North Korea and China, long the reclusive country's only ally, declared 2024, the 75th anniversary of diplomatic ties, to be their "Year of Friendship." However, there have been no high-level Chinese exchanges since April, when Beijing sent one of its most senior officials, Zhao Leji, to Pyongyang for the opening ceremony.

Unlike past "Friendship Years," such as the 60th anniversary in 2009, there has been no mention of a closing ceremony in Beijing.

What To Know

Beijing's silence follows speculation over Xi Jinping's omission of a traditional phrase in his correspondence with Kim. Responding to Kim's National Day congratulations, Xi referred to "brotherly Korea" but omitted the usual "friendly neighboring country," which analysts see as a subtle signal of displeasure over Pyongyang's security partnership with Moscow.

Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the North Korean Embassy in China for comment.

Asked about this at the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Monday press briefing, spokesperson Mao Ning demurred, stating the two nations are "friendly neighbors and always enjoy a traditional friendship and cooperative ties."

Analysts have told Newsweek Moscow and Pyongyang's strengthening security ties do not sit well with China, which they say is uneasy about potential Russian arms supplies to North Korea that could increase instability in China's backyard.

The U.S. and its allies have raised concerns Russia could provide Pyongyang with supplies and technical assistance, in exchange for North Korean troops and munitions, that could strengthen Kim's United Nations-sanctioned ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.

What People Are Saying

Mao Ning, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson: "We are willing to work with the DPRK [North Korea's official name, he Democratic People's Republic of Korea] to safeguard, consolidate and develop China-DPRK relations in accordance with the important common understanding achieved by the leaders of the two countries."

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell. "The topic that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for Chinese interlocutors really is the DPRK engagement with Russia. In some of the discussions that we've had, it seems that we're informing China of things that they were unaware of, actually, with respect to DPRK pursuits." Campbell said at a November event held by Washington D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

Campbell added: "Increasing coordination between Pyongyang and Moscow is unnerving [for China]" and that Russian encouragement could push North Korea into actions not in China's interest.

What's Next?

U.S. officials say Russia has pledged MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter jets in exchange for North Korean troop deployments, and South Korea has reported additional soldiers could soon be sent to Russia.

China has stressed its non-interference in North Korea-Russia relations and is unlikely to signal overt displeasure or significantly scale back its economic and diplomatic support for Russia in the near future, with the "no limits" partners continuing to present a united front against what they characterize as a U.S. hegemony.

[suzilight]

Interrupting my regularly scheduled content for:

Russia's Putin and North Korea's Kim sign mutual defence pact

June 19, 202412:47 PM PDT Reuters

Russian leader makes first visit to North Korea in 24 years

Putin: pact provides for mutual defence

Putin: Russia may develop weapons and technology ties

Kim calls the new ties 'alliance', pledges 'unconditional support'

West fears Russia could aid North's nuclear, missile programmes

Putin and Xi pledge a new era and condemn the United States

May 16, 2024 Reuters

Putin and Xi cast U.S. as Cold War hegemon

Pledge to deepen partnership in defence, trade

Say new era in Russian-Chinese ties is dawning

China and Russia declared a "no limits" partnership in February 2022 when Putin visited Beijing just days before he sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine, triggering the deadliest land war in Europe since World War Two.

Xi, 70, and Putin, 71, signed a joint statement on Thursday about the "new era" that proclaimed opposition to the U.S. on a host of security issues and a shared view on everything from Taiwan and Ukraine to North Korea and cooperation on new peaceful nuclear technologies and finance.

"The China-Russia relationship today is hard-earned, and the two sides need to cherish and nurture it," Xi told Putin.

"China is willing to ... jointly achieve the development and rejuvenation of our respective countries, and work together to uphold fairness and justice in the world."

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower by Global Fire Power

Looking ahead, Russian leader Vladimir “Putin’s total mobilisation of his economy is simply not sustainable. And he knows it,” British military chief Grant Shapps said Monday on social media while sharing the latest British intelligence update on the war in Ukraine. That update emphasized reported labor shortages inside Russia, which are seen as something of a ticking time bomb for Putin’s long term goals. (source Defense One)

[spiderlegsmusic]

This should be clear: the coup attempt wasn’t the siege at the capitol. It was the fake electors scheme going on in the swing states. The attack on the capitol was part of it—it was needed to stop or delay the count so that these fake electors could get into place. Fortunately not all republicans are conscienceless. One of the fake electors in Michigan and in Georgia refused to sign their fake elector certificates, and Pence refused to take the fake electors list from Rep Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin). Thus the “hang Mike Pence” chants.

Had the coup been successful, new info came out (via Countdown) that Trump would have had Biden executed. Trump isn’t just a traitor, he’s capable of any atrocity you can imagine, so stop thinking “that can’t happen here.” He has said he will put immigrants and his critics in prison—vermin. Where will he draw the line?

Hitler didn’t just put Jews in the camps, he put artists, teachers, philosophers, musicians—anyone who criticized him, or who potentially could—in those camps.

Trump said he never read Mein Kampf, but Steven Miller, his right hand man (his Joseph Goebbels) has. And trump’s late exwife Ivana Trump told her lawyer, among other people, that Trump kept a book containing hitler’s speeches on his bedside table. The friend who gave it to Trump confirmed this.

Look who he admires: Xi, Kim, Orbán and his good buddy, Putin. Trump wants so desperately to be a dictator like his buddies. His last administration had republicans in high positions who were recommended by other republicans. They weren’t Trump people. They often butted heads and opposed trump’s ideas because they weren’t constitutional or because they were brutal or ridiculous or all 3.

If he wins, he will fill those positions with sycophants—Trump yes men—who won’t be qualified for those jobs and more importantly, won’t try to stop him when he does ridiculous, brutal or unconstitutional things…like rounding up brown people (the immigrants he hates aren’t the ones from Europe), critics, opponents , and why stop there? How about teachers, artists, philosophers and musicians? There won’t be anyone in his administration to stop him this time like there were last time.

Go ahead and call me a Cassandra. But it can happen here. On day 1 of trump’s dictatorship, he’ll round up immigrants and put them in camps. He has repeated that several times. Even when Hannity gave Trump an opportunity to downplay his threats, Trump doubled down on them. It can happen here. Register to vote. Vote.

The depths to which Trump will reach have no limits. He’s an evil and insane wannabe dictator. Biden isn’t an ideal president. He’s owned by corporations and special interests like most politicians. But he’s not going to round people up and put them in camps. He doesn’t admire Hitler. The past 4 years haven’t been great at all, but imagine the next 4 years under Trump with no one to stop his cruelty. No one to rein him in. He thinks he’s a king. Thinks he’s immune from prosecution. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t have another scheme ready for when he loses this election too.

So if you’re planning on not voting because of biden’s stance on the war in Gaza, his inability to forgive student debt, or any of the other legitimate reasons you have for disliking him, I ask you to reconsider. Vote for him and hold his feet to the fire. Protest him until he hears you and changes his mind. He is at least capable of reconsidering his views.

He’s done it before. He wrote the crime bill during the Clinton administration that took a hardline approach to all drugs, including pot. This year he repealed the convictions of everyone who had been convicted of federal marijuana charges. That is literally 180° turn. You can change his mind.

You can’t change Trump’s.

If you read this far, thank you

[bopinion]

2023 / 22

Aperçu of the Week:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not the ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

(Stephen Hawking - British theoretical physicist and astrophysicist at Cambridge University)

Bad News of the Week:

With the Manhattan Project, mankind has already opened Pandora's box once. For there will be no way back to a time before nuclear weapons. Despite knowing better, the lid will never be put on the box, because there will always be people who see an advantage in it: personal preservation of power, deterrence against real or imagined threats, signs of national strength and other superficial egoisms. We will never get rid of this curse. And exactly the same thing is happening again now. With artificial intelligence. Says Warren Buffett, too.

The scientists can't be blamed for this. It is in their nature to test the limits of what is possible. And if the goal of their research and development is also economically attractive, there will always be someone to fund their work. It started with shopping recommendations in online stores. It continued with the analysis of movement profiles. And today, AI in insurance companies is already making decisions about who gets which rate at which conditions. All based on bare numbers, so 100% objective.

In a way, the great advantage of human intelligence is the equally human retarding moment. It is called conscience. Doubts are good, because they let humans think again, risk a second look, weigh things up based on personal experience. Artificial intelligence does not have this control mechanism. It decides purely on the basis of facts, coldly, ruthlessly. Example: how would artificial intelligence decide if the power fails in a hospital and the emergency generator only has enough electricity for one system. What would it shut down - itself or the life-support systems of patients in palliative care who were doomed anyway? Exactly.

The statements from critics - and there are many among them who have been or are in AI development themselves, such as Sam Altman, the head of ChatGPT creator Open AI - calling on policymakers to act are serious. Once again, technical progress is much faster than regulatory requirements. Still, for example, the handling of fake news and hate speech in social media lags far behind. But this time there is (even) more at stake: the control of the human over the machine.

Joachim Weickert, professor of mathematics and computer science at Saarland University, lists four areas of risk: Upheaval in the labor market, even for highly skilled professions. Destabilization of societies through disinformation. Loss of control, intransparency and one-sidedness. And finally, the damaging independence of AI itself - by simply taking command itself, fully aware of its own superiority. Almost 40 years ago, we were introduced to the central machine instance Skynet in the cinema. Let's hope it's not "I am back!" one day in reality.

Good News of the Week:

I am a child of the Cold War. Germany and Europe were divided. In school we learned what to do in the event of an atomic bomb explosion and subway stations led to bunkers. The world seemed clearly divided into good and evil. Nevertheless, I took to the streets against the stationing of Pershing missiles, found the "nuclear sharing" frightening - to this day, we Germans do not know where the U.S. forces keep how many nuclear weapons in our country. Neither do we know about Great Britain and France. Creepy.

Then came the turning point. Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union collapsed, the war of systems seemed to have a clear winner. And nuclear weapons were to rust away uselessly, serving only as a fetish of Arab and East Asian rulers. With Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, there are now two men in power in undemocratic states for whom nuclear weapons are a perfectly normal utensil of geopolitical interests.

And the United States is not very squeamish about its words either. In the future, the United States should be able "for the first time in your history, to deter two roughly equal nuclear powers," says national security adviser Jake Sullivan. And, "one of our greatest nonproliferation successes in the age of nuclear weapons has been extended nuclear deterrence, which gives many of our allies the assurance that they don't have to develop their own nuclear weapons." In short, living with the bomb is again (or still) quite normal.

At this point in Sullivan's speech on Friday in the White House press room, I would have preferred to get out of it and would have expected unpleasant dreams for the following night. But then I was surprised: In light of the New START nuclear arms control treaty, which expires in 2026 and which Russia suspended four months ago anyway, Sullivan called for talks "on how to deal with nuclear risks beyond 2026" so that no new conflicts would arise.

And then came a double whammy: first, the U.S. called for talks "without preconditions," and second, it directed that call to Russia - and China. And thus, for the first time, acknowledges an equal footing. Therefore, the talks will happen. I am not naive, there will be no large-scale waiver with reciprocal controls that everyone would then abide by. But whoever made the statement "Where there is talk, there is no shooting." was almost always right.

Personal happy moment of the week:

My son returned yesterday from a vacation in Italy with his mother and sister. Where he was not only willing to risk a glimpse of nature and culture, but also went swimming for a whole two hours every day. And today he left with my father for a week-long bike tour, from Koblenz along the Moselle to Luxembourg. And he has already declared that he will also make a detour to a church or castle worth seeing. In addition, he not only tanned his skin in Italy, but also overtook my wife in height. So in every sense it means: he is getting big.

I couldn't care less...

...about the further rapprochement of the Arab powers Saudi Arabia and Iran. This time in the form of the establishment of a naval alliance. Officially it is said that this is the only way to bring security to the region. Iranian naval commander Sharam Irani declares: "Then we will witness our region being liberated from unauthorized forces." This can only mean the U.S. naval base in Bahrain. A common adversary is apparently enough to bridge fundamental differences - in this case, the Shiite versus Sunni faiths of Islam. Unfortunately, this will do nothing for democracy or even human rights. On the contrary: The oppression of women, for example, will be cemented even more firmly.

As I write this...

...a mixture of full moon, everyday worries and Monday horror keeps me from sleeping. Well at least I'll get my blog done, which I didn't get around to finish yesterday / Sunday.

Post Scriptum

On Saturday was organ donation day. A topic that urgently needs more attention. Because about 8,500 Germans are currently waiting for an organ transplant, for kidneys, for example, about eight years - too long for many. And in 2022, only 900 people donated an organ. Theoretically, people are much more willing to donate, but bureaucracy is the main obstacle: many relatives don't even know what the deceased person's position is on the subject, and there is often no valid identification. The so-called "objection solution" would put an end to this, as the donation would then have to be actively and centrally documented. But there is currently no majority in parliament for this. And at least one person dies every day in Germany - avoidably.

[hjellacott]

Tiktok

The international version of the Chinese product Douyin.

Owned by: ByteDance Limited (Zìjié Tiàodòng).

Content censorship: They ban and suppress criticism of leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, mahatma Gandhi, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Also they suppress content informing of what happens at the Xinjiang Internment Camps (basically modern Chinese concentration camps to brainwash muslims), and the Uyghur genocide. They also ban users deemed too ugly, poor or disabled for the platform, censor political speech, block positive LGBT content, and set country-specific censorship rules.

It has been revealed that TikTok's Chinese employees could spy on users from all over the world, including obtaining their fingerprints and biometric data, aside from facial, which the Chinese government also has access to.

BYTEDANCE LTD.

Headquarters: Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands (tax haven).

Founded by: Zhang Yiming, Liang Rubo, and more.

In partnership with: The Chinese Ministry of Public Security.

Also owned by: several companies with shares in it. For example a Chinese state-owned company owned by the Cybespace Administration of China and China Media Group.

Financed by: Hillhouse Capital Group )largest privaty equity fund in Asia), General Atlantic (US growth equity firm), Sequoia Capital (American venture capital firm), SoftBank Group Corporation (Japanese multinational conglomerate holding company focused on investment management), KKR & Co. Inc. (American investment company that manages alternative assets).

They've also created: Toutiao, a Chinese news platform that has been subjected to criticism for showing advertisement of products that Toutiao doesn't care if they're good or not, or even certified, after Toutiao employees said the company will even fake product certifies and allow illegal advertisement.

There are surveillance and privacy concerns with Bytedance company, with suspicions of its work for the Chinese Communist Party to censor content about human rights abuses.

[mariacallous]

Elections in Moldova and Georgia this week are turning into a sobering reality check for the European Union as it finds itself increasingly on the back foot in its battle for influence with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

For years, the EU has been confident that its liberal, democratic agenda will ultimately steer Georgia and Moldova away from the Kremlin’s orbit and toward the West — a confidence boosted by polls suggesting both countries have big popular majorities for EU membership.

This week’s elections now suggest that this optimistic EU vision is increasingly uncertain. Moldova voted for EU membership by only the narrowest of margins on Sunday — with 50.4 percent of voters in favor — and the populist Georgian Dream party that is expected to win on Saturday is set to pursue an illiberal agenda that would make EU membership impossible.

For the EU, the determination of its adversary in Moscow is daunting.

It is evident that the Kremlin — despite its heavy commitments in Ukraine — is still willing to pour big money into vote-buying and disinformation campaigns to reassert its stamp on former Soviet territories. In both Moldova and Georgia, Moscow is making headway with a propaganda narrative that countries which pursue a pro-EU or pro-NATO agenda are playing with fire, recommending neutrality as the antidote to conflict.

Aghast at the result, Moldova’s pro-EU President Maia Sandu complained of Russia’s “unprecedented assault on our country’s freedom and democracy.” While recent polls suggested a majority of some 60 percent were in favor of joining the bloc, it looked for much of the night as if the anti-EU camp would win.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was quick to stress the tight result was the result of Russian dirty tricks, and insisted Brussels would press ahead with getting Moldova into the bloc.

“In the face of Russia’s hybrid tactics, Moldova shows that it is independent, it is strong and it wants a European future,” she said.

Still, the result in Moldova lays bare the limits to EU influence just as Putin is styling himself as part of a broader anti-Western alliance.

On Tuesday, Putin will host Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and more than 15 other heads of state for talks in the Russian city of Kazan. Moscow has pushed for the admission of a handful of new countries into a BRICS format, designed to band developing economies together to challenge Euro-American interests. It also wants to use it to challenge the United States dollar.

Bribes and disinformation

There is little doubt about the scale of Russian intervention in Moldova.

In a statement following the count, the leader of the National Democratic Institute’s observation mission, former Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto, reported widespread efforts to undermine the process.

“The greatest threat to the integrity of these elections has been a broad and concerted campaign of malign foreign influence from Russia, collaborating with Moldovan actors through information manipulation, vote-buying, and other illicit financing of political activity,” he said.

To achieve even the slimmest of majorities in that context, other monitors said, was a significant achievement. “Moldovans demonstrated resilience in the face of unprecedented foreign interference,” said U.S. Congressman Peter Roskam, who led an International Republican Institute observer mission.

Moldovan officials repeatedly sounded the alarm over huge sums of Russian money being funnelled into the accounts of ordinary voters in the weeks leading up to the vote. The authorities accuse Moscow and its local proxies of seeking to use cash to push people into opposing EU membership and uniting behind a pro-Russian challenger standing against Sandu.

“We are talking about up to 20 percent of corrupted votes, and an estimated €150 million interference operation by Russia,” said Valeriu Pasha, program manager at the Moldova-based think-tank WatchDog.MD Community. “Without this massive vote bribing, the result would look totally different. So in these very harsh conditions, the fact that we still have a majority yes vote is already a very good result.”

A transferable model

Speaking to POLITICO ahead of the vote on Sunday, former Moldovan Foreign Minister Nicu Popescu said the referendum had been called to “settle the domestic conversation in the country” before voters head to the polls in next year’s parliamentary elections, where Sandu and her allies face a host of pro-Russian opposition parties.

That gambit appears to have failed. Instead of demonstrating unity, it has created a dangerous new dividing line, and convinced the Kremlin it pays to try to swing the result.

“The preliminary election results highlight the challenges Brussels faces in extending EU membership to post-Soviet countries,” said Marta Mucznik, an analyst with Crisis Group. “With Moldova preparing for parliamentary elections in 2025, these divisions are likely to shape political discourse in the months ahead.”

That bodes ill for Georgia, where the Georgian Dream party is seeking a majority in parliamentary elections on Saturday, vowing to ban the entire opposition if it secures enough votes. The dramatic campaign comes amid warnings of state capture by Russia, as the country passed Moscow-inspired restrictions on Western-funded nongovernmental organizations, the media and the LGBTQ+ community.

“It’s time Western policymakers woke up to the fact that Russia’s war isn’t just limited to Ukraine — it’s about taking on the democratic world anywhere that Moscow thinks it can exert influence,” said Ivana Stradner of Washington’s Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “And while risk-averse European and American officials think in terms of individual tactics, Putin has a whole strategy he’s using to try and win.”

For Sandu, it’s not just EU candidate nations that should be worried — or just smaller ones.

Everyone is at risk.

“It is true that you can damage the democratic process in a small country more easily,” the Moldovan president said. “But once these practices are tested in smaller countries, they can be tried in other countries.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Matt Davies :: Strange love

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 20, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 21, 2024

Yesterday, in North Korea, Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a security partnership between their countries that said they would “provide mutual assistance in case of aggression.” The two authoritarian leaders essentially resurrected a 1961 agreement between North Korea and the Soviet Union. According to the North Korean News Agency, the agreement also calls for the two countries to work together toward a “just and multipolar new world order.”

The United States and other western allies have been concerned for two years about the strengthening ties between the two countries. Putin needs weapons for the war in Ukraine, and in exchange, he might provide not only the economic support Kim Jong Un needs—North Korea is one of the poorest countries in Asia—but also transfer the technology North Korea needs to develop nuclear weapons. 

In the New York Times today, David Sanger pointed out that Putin and China’s leader Xi Jinping have partnered against the West in the past decade but have always agreed that North Korea must not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. Now, it appears, Putin is desperate enough for munitions that he is willing to provide the technologies North Korea needs to obtain one, along with missiles to deliver it. 

Meanwhile, Joby Warrick reported yesterday in the Washington Post that Iran has launched big expansions of two key nuclear enrichment plants, and leaders of the country’s nuclear program have begun to say they could build a nuclear weapon quickly if asked to do so. On X, security analyst Jon Wolfsthal recalled the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that successfully limited Iran’s nuclear program and that Trump abandoned with vows to produce something better. Wolfsthal noted that diplomacy worked when “wars and ‘promises’ of a better deal could not.”   

Still, the meeting between Putin and Kim Jong Un is a sign of weakness, not strength. As The Telegraph pointed out, just ten years ago, Putin was welcomed to the G8 (now the G7) by the leaders of the richest countries in the world. “Now he has to go cap in hand to the pariah state of North Korea,” it pointed out. National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby added that “Russia is absolutely isolated on the world stage. They’ve been forced to rely, again, on countries like North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile…, Ukraine just organized a successful peace summit in Switzerland that had more than 100 countries and organizations sign up to support President Zelenskyy’s vision for a just peace.” 

In that same press conference, Kirby noted that the U.S. is delaying planned deliveries of foreign military sales to other countries, particularly of air defense missiles, sending the weapons to Ukraine instead. Also today, the U.S. emphasized that Ukraine can use American-supplied weapons to hit Russian forces in Russia. This is at least partly in response to recent reports that Russia is pulverizing Ukrainian front-line cities to force inhabitants to abandon them. Ukraine can slow the barrage by hitting the Russian airstrips from which the planes are coming.

China, which declared a “no limits” partnership with Russia in February 2022 just before Russia invaded Ukraine, kept distant from the new agreement between Russia and North Korea. Tong Zhao of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Laurie Chen and Josh Smith of Reuters: "China is…careful not to create the perception of a de facto alliance among Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang, as this will not be helpful for China to maintain practical cooperation with key Western countries.”

Greg Torode, Gerry Doyle, and Laurie Chen published an exclusive story in Reuters tonight, reporting that in March, for the first time in five years, delegates from the U.S. and China resumed semi-official talks about nuclear arms, although official talks have stalled.

The office of president of the Republic of Korea (ROK), Yoon Suk Yeol, condemned the agreement. “It’s absurd that two parties with a history of launching wars of invasion—the Korean War and the war in Ukraine—are now vowing mutual military cooperation on the premise of a preemptive attack by the international community that will never happen,” it said. An ROK national security official added that the government, which has provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine, will now consider supplying weapons. This is no small threat: ROK is one of the world’s top ten arms exporters.  

In the U.S., John Kirby told reporters that while cooperation between Russia and North Korea is a concern, the U.S. has been strengthening and bolstering alliances and partnerships throughout the Indo-Pacific region since President Joe Biden took office. It brokered the historic trilateral agreement between the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the United States; launched AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.; and expanded cooperation with the Philippines. 

On Tuesday, at a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in Washington, D.C., NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained the cooperation between Russia and North Korea like this. “Russia’s war in Ukraine is…propped up by China, North Korea, and Iran,” he said. “They want to see the United States fail. They want to see NATO fail. If they succeed in Ukraine, it will make us more vulnerable and the world more dangerous. 

To that, The Bulwark today added journalist Anne Applebaum’s comments about the determination of those countries to disrupt liberal democracies. Dictators, she said, “are betting that Trump will be the person who destroys the United States, whether he makes it ungovernable, whether he assaults the institutions so that they no longer function, whether he creates so much division and chaos that the U.S. can’t have a foreign policy anymore. That’s what they want, and that’s what they’re hoping he will do.”

Trump himself is a more and more problematic candidate. This week, author Ramin Setoodeh, who has a new book coming out soon about Trump’s transformation from failed businessman to reality TV star on the way to the presidency, has told reporters that Trump has “severe memory issues” adding that “he couldn’t remember things, he couldn’t even remember me.”

Trump is supposed to participate in a debate with President Biden on June 27, and while Biden is preparing as candidates traditionally do, with policy reviews and practice, Trump’s team has been downplaying Trump’s need for preparation, saying that his rallies and interviews with friendly media are enough. 

With new polls showing Biden overtaking the lead in the presidential contest, right-wing media has been pushing so-called cheap fakes: videos that don’t use AI but misrepresent what happened by deceptively cutting the film or the shot. 

Social media has been flooded with images of Biden appearing to bend over for no apparent reason at a D-Day commemoration; the clip cuts off both the chair behind him and that everyone else was sitting down, too. Another, from the recent G7 summit, appears to show the president wandering away from a group of leaders during a skydiving demonstration; in fact, he was walking toward and speaking to a parachute jumper who had just landed but was off camera. A third appears to show Biden unable to say the name of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; in fact, he was teasing Mayorkas, and the film cuts off just before Biden says his name.  

On Monday, June 17, Judd Legum of Popular information produced a deep report on how the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group has been flooding its local media websites with these and other stories suggesting that President Biden is “mentally unfit for office.” Legum noted that these stories appeared simultaneously on at least 86 local news websites Sinclair owns.

Finally, today, in the New York Times, Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer reported that two of Judge Aileen Cannon’s more experienced colleagues on Florida’s federal bench—including the chief judge, a George W. Bush appointee—urged her to hand off the case of Trump’s retention of classified documents to someone else when it was assigned to her. They noted that she was inexperienced, having been appointed by Trump only very late in his term, and that taking the case would look bad since she had previously been rebuked by a conservative appeals court after helping Trump in the criminal investigation that led to the indictment. 

She refused to pass the assignment to someone else.  

Trump’s lawyers’ approach to the case has been to try to delay it until after the election. Judge Cannon’s decisions appear to have made that strategy succeed.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[tomorrowusa]

The EU is considering whether it is a good idea to be the friend of a friend of a war criminal.

'Pandora’s box': EU weighs changing relations with China

If Xi Jinping chooses to "befriend a war criminal, it is our duty to get very serious about China," Lithuania's foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, told DW when asked what he thought about the Chinese president's three-day visit to Moscow and his meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Putin late last week, accusing him of war crimes.

The only way forward for the European Union now, Landsbergis said, is to take "first steps on de-risking and eventual decoupling from China. The sooner we start, the better for the union."

[ ... ]

China has been supporting Russia's war efforts, however, in several indirect ways. This includes the ramping up of economic exchanges and exports of dual-use equipment, said Grzegorz Stec, an analyst at the Brussels office of the Mercator Institute for China Studies, a German foundation.

Among the equipment exports are "tires, trucks, clothing and other goods that can be used by the Russian military, although those are not specifically weapons," he told DW.

If the West were to find tangible proof of China providing large-scale military equipment to Russia, Stec pointed out, that would be "a red line" for the Europeans. But he recommended taking a cautious approach before accusing China of supplying weapons to Russia, given the magnitude of the potential geopolitical implications.

The perceived Chinese tilt towards Russia has not done it much good in Europe.

Regardless of this reluctance, Europe's attitude towards China is more skeptical than it has been in decades, said Reinhard Bütikofer, chair of the European Parliament's China delegation.

"The Chinese haven't been very successful in dealing with the Europeans lately," he told DW. "I would say they have squandered a lot of the political capital that they used to have."

[ ... ]

"The Chinese are trying to balance two incompatible goals. Being best buddies with Putin and being good friends of the Europeans at the same time," Bütikofer said. He made clear he doesn't think they can achieve both."As Abraham Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time or all the people some of the time. But you cannot fool all the people all the time." In concrete political terms, he explained, this meant that they would "fail if they insist on their no-limits friendship with the Russians."

In 1949, as he was laying the groundwork for the establishment of The People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong declared, "The Chinese people have stood up!" The brutal invasion of Ukraine has finally made Europe stand up to Russia’s neocolonialist revanchism.

China will do better if it understands that a significant shift in thinking has taken place in Europe. The days of playing footsie with Putin and of accommodating Russian oligarchs in European democracies are gone.

[misfitwashere]

Why Greenland?

And Canada, Mexico, Panama...

TIMOTHY SNYDER

JAN 15

In one way, Trump is utterly predictable. He wants to die in bed rather than in prison, and he wants that bed to be in the White House. That's what they all want, all of these supposedly strong men with their ostensibly national feeling: the eternal clean sheets.

But precisely because the authoritarians are predictable in this way, they are unpredictable in another. Because they are entirely fixated on themselves, and skillful at separating themselves from normal political checks, observers cannot evaluate their behavior in the familiar and comforting terms of national interest.

"America First" has nothing to do with the interests of Americans facing a challenging world, and no one has even pretended very hard that it does. What "America First" means, in the 2020s as in the 1940s, is that America should be the first democracy to imitate leading foreign dictators. Trump has admired dictators and will admire dictators. This might be in his interest: again, in the basic sense that he needs to learn how to stay in power and die in bed. But it has nothing to do with the interests of Americans.

The more power is concentrated in the hands of one person, the harder it is to say what is actually going on. People fantasize that strong-man rule will be simple and stable, but for everyone except the strong man it is exhausting and destructive.

Sure, we might want Trump to be concerned about the national interest; we might wish that he considered the world beyond the United States in light of what might benefit its citizens. It will be comforting for the many in the media to imagine that somehow Trump considers the world and his fellow citizens, and we hear a lot of hopeful nonsense along those lines.

But there is, frankly, zero evidence that any of his cogitation takes that form. Anyone imagining that Trump speaks of Greenland or Panama or Canada or Mexico because he cares about America would need to cite some pattern of behavior that demonstrates that Trump has ever done so.

Checks from elections, from the law, and from other government bodies force an executive to think before speaking. The interests and utterances of voters or other politicians can help us see what might happen. Insofar as they have a voice, we know that the executive is at least hearing that voice. Insofar as they have an ability to check, we know that the executive faces limits. Trump is now largely free of all that; and so we are forced, sadly, to try to figure out what is in his mind.

So why is Trump (or people in his circle) talking about building an American empire that includes (depending on the day) Greenland, Canada, Panama, Mexico? The statements are of course different in each case, ranging from threats of invasion to control internal politics (Mexico and Panama), economic pressure or possible invasion to annex territory (Denmark over Greenland), and economic pressure to achieve political control (Canada, although with lots of side commentary from allies about absorbing the whole country).

Even if we cannot be certain about what Trump has in mind, we have to be serious about the consequences of his statements. I would caution strongly against treating Trump's outlandish imperialism as a joke; whatever Trump's motives, the things he has said are dangerous in the extreme, making ongoing wars less likely to end, making new wars more likely, and promising a future of senseless resource war. Here are five Trumpian logics explanations, all of which can function together, and probably do.

1. Putin and Xi. Trump is assisting Putin and Xi, making present Russian wars easier and future Chinese wars more likely. The international legal order is based upon the notion that states are sovereign and borders are inviolable. To be sure, these principles have been ignored in the past. But hypocrisy is a very different thing than nihilism. By advocating a violent American empire, Trump is saying that there is no international legal order. Worse still: he and the people around him are repeating arguments that Putin has made for more than a decade: borders are not real; people on the other side of borders want to be ruled by us; the law does not apply to big powers. It is objectively the case that this makes Russian and Chinese imperialism easier. Trump is removing the arguments, supported by most of the world, against a Russian invasion of Ukraine or a future Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The reactions of Moscow and Beijing make it very clear that Russian and Chinese leaders understand the work that Trump is doing for them. The only question here is whether Trump is knowingly or unknowingly doing comms work for Putin and Xi. In my view, he knows exactly what he is doing. He is enacting a policy of fighting with friends and enabling enemies.

2. Musk. It is important for Trump's supporters to believe that Trump is the one actually in charge. One way to accomplish this is for Trump to seem more outlandish than Elon Musk. In recent weeks, Musk has expressed the view that Germany can only be saved by its far right, called for Britain's government to be dissolved, and even expressed preferences about who should lead the radical parties in these countries. Now, Musk's actions are broadly consistent with Trump's: he supports people in Europe who can be counted on to oppose alliances with the United States, to break the European Union, and to make life much easier for Beijing and Moscow. But, as even Trump's ideologues have to admit, Musk's money means that he might even be able to achieve these goals. What Musk has been doing has been outrageous, by any standard. If we regard Musk as an individual, he is claiming that he has a special power to make and break governments around the world ("we can coup whoever we want.") If we regard Musk as an American co-president, he is interfering in the domestic politics of other countries in a way that is openly imperial. Like Trump, Musk has never provided any evidence that he has a view of the American national interest, or cares in any way how changes in the world affect the lives of Americans. He uses the power that he has for his own purposes, and does not really seek to hide that. In this situation, where Trump may have less real power than Musk, he can compete at the level of spectacle. Musk's designs on Europe and the world may be more sinister, in the long run, than Trump's on Greenland etc. But today at least they are less spectacular and receive less media attention. So Trump's rhetorical imperialism might be there to distract from Musk's real imperialism. And, of course, Musk might very well be behind Trump's rhetoric anyway. Who do we think told Trump that Greenland and Canada had valuable mineral resources? Is this something that Trump read about on his own? Musk's own rhetoric on Canada, though it has received less attention, has been even sharper than Trump's.

3. Nominees. Trump is good at directing media attention this way and that. And he needs to do so, given that many of his nominees for high office, especially those with responsibility for national security, are incompetent and much worse. As I have written elsewhere, it is ludicrous to imagine that Tulsi Gabbard is a reasonable choice to direct American intelligence agencies, that Pete Hegseth should run the defense department, or that Kash Patel should direct our national police force (the FBI). These people are entirely bereft of qualifications for these positions. And that should be more than enough to disqualify them. What stands out about them is something that transcends even their total incompetence: their notorious positions in favor of destroying international and domestic legal order. Gabbard is known for nothing around the world beyond her defense of Assad and Putin. Hegseth believes that America should be fighting a "Holy War" against itself. Patel has argued for arresting Americans for their political views. As we approach their nomination hearings, we should be thinking about what kind of America, and world, will be created if such people are allowed the run some of the most powerful institutions of violence in the history of the world. All the talk of Greenland and the rest has been shielding them. It distracts the media. And it makes chaos seem normal. It should be pointed out, in fairness, that these people will not help to actually fight wars abroad. If Trump's nominees are confirmed, what we can actually expect is conflict within the United States. Trump is opening the world for Russian and Chinese expansion in this way as well. If we follow the logic of this hypothesis, we would circle back to the first logic: that Trump's fake American imperialism is just there to enable real Russian and Chinese imperialism.

4. Enemies. By essentially announcing that he wants to destroy world order and make life easy for Putin and Xi, Trump is creating a loyalty test. Anyone who wants to work for him or to be regarded as loyal has to support his wild and destructive ideas, or at the very least keep quiet about them. Regardless of whether or not Trump takes aggressive action against Canada, Greenland, Panama, or Mexico, those who point out the nihilism and self-destructiveness of it all can be presented as enemies. Trump's politics works on a notion of friends and enemies, not on a notion of the interests of people or the rights of citizens. So imperialist fantasies can be useful in domestic politics as a way of drawing lines and generating domestic conflict.

5. Minerals. People seeking some kind of American interest in the control of Greenland or Canada point to the mineral assets of these countries. This hardly means that invading them is a good idea. It would make much more sense to preserve our present alliances with Canada and with Europe, and to trade on a fair basis with our friends. Invasions and threats thereof will not actually get Americans access to valuable goods. They will undo the world order and leave everyone, including Americans, far worse off. Insofar as they make it easier for anyone to control the Arctic, Trump's threats favor Russia. Squabbling among Western allies and flouting of international law makes things easier for Putin everywhere, including the Arctic. And the hard truth about the real world is this: it makes no sense to dream of conquering northern lands for gas and oil. Even were it possible, it would be the worst of all possible policies. Given the state of the global climate, the resources currently under the ice have to stay in the ground if we want to have any chance of maintaining ourselves as a functional civilization. Even if Greenland and Canada were controlled by America, in some dark imperial world, the resources American imperialists want are only becoming accessible because global warming is melting ice. The people who want to profit from them are imagining themselves getting very wealthy in a world in which America is flooded on the coasts and on fire everywhere else, in which a very large portion of the American population is living through Asheville or Los Angeles every day. The aspiration to control these assets amounts to a politics of catastrophe, a plan to burn the world for the profits of the few. And this is the logic in which we take Trump at his word.