Comments

• By basisword 2025-02-2821:2633 reply

  If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs. Time to stand up, realise the US is no longer a reliable ally, and start building (on all fronts - military, manufacturing, tech, etc). Given the American people voted for this guy twice - the second time in spite of Jan 6th and multiple indictments against him - there's no reason to believe the next person they vote in won't be worse.

  By whizzter 2025-03-018:427 reply

  We just had the leader of a Swedish party saying that non-US nuclear armament plans are needed, this is very significant since it's been basically unthinkable to say as far back as the 1960s or so when our own nuclear program was dismantled (The program was discontinued partly due to internal pressures but also rumored longstanding US guarantees for being under a nuclear shield).

  By skinkestek 2025-03-0114:451 reply
  Norwegian here.
  I'd openly appreciate Sweden doing a nuclear test, preferably with almost plausible deniability (like Israel).
  I'd also count support for this from any of our politicians as a plus for any party in our election this fall.
  We have lots of money, the Swedes has nuclear power, know how, industrial expertise and probably a few guys left that still remember last time (they could have done it a number of times) they covertly almost built a nuke.
  By hypothesis 2025-03-0121:211 reply
  Hey look, a NATO founding member with a backbone, congratulations!
  > After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels
  https://bsky.app/profile/osinttechnical.bsky.social/post/3lj...
  By nickserv 2025-03-019:134 reply
  France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers. Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that short term.
  By lukan 2025-03-019:181 reply

  It is not a new idea, but France would love to have others pay for their nuclear weapons, without giving up control. So yes, it will be a while to sort this out, but the box is open now. It is clear that own nukes are the only thing, the big powers respect. So many countries will pursue them now.

  And building a simple nuke is not that complicated - when you have the nuclear material. Europe does.

  By n1b0m 2025-03-0114:001 reply

  Trident, the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons program is dependent on Washington for the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines. The nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.

  By kragen 2025-03-0110:382 reply

  If France can keep Sweden from resuming their own nuclear weapons program, they don't have to worry about getting into a nuclear war with Sweden 40 years from now. (Unthinkable? So was Sweden joining a mutual defense alliance like NATO.)

  Drones make nukes obsolete anyway. After you nuke a country its generals no longer have any incentive to surrender; they have nothing to go home to when they leave their bunkers.

  By nprateem 2025-03-0113:44

  The UK depends on Trident. Apparently the terms are something like a lease agreement and Trump could ask for them back or disable them.
  By Gud 2025-03-0113:582 reply
  That there hasn’t been a Scandinavian military alliance is a huge mistake. It would stabilise the entire continent.
  Instead there is NATO, totally dominated by the US.
  By card_zero 2025-03-0114:031 reply

  Time for the Northern Europe Alternative Treaty Organization.

  By bjoli 2025-03-0117:43

  I wonder what the Swedish government thinks of the DCA agreement now. I would definitely reconsider.
  By belter 2025-03-0119:541 reply
  Interesting...
  "Swedish nuclear weapons program" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
  By throwaway48476 2025-03-020:25

  They went a lot further than publicly acknowledged.
  By PartiallyTyped 2025-03-0112:50
  I think quite a few EU leaders agree on this stance, and given the conversations with my peers, all of us want an independent EU.
  By leewr 2025-03-0116:101 reply
  Just curious, who said this?

  By hintymad 2025-02-2823:342 reply

  > If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots

  They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia

  By thesumofall 2025-03-017:246 reply
  Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants. In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early, but looking at the rise of renewables it’s just a matter of time until nuclear will just be irrelevant (1). In addition, this will allow true energy independence while for example the German nuclear plants relied partially on fuel rods produced in Russia …
  (1) Yes, there is the challenge of dark days with little wind, but there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)
  By cco 2025-03-016:451 reply
  Look into the German Chancellor that shut down the nuclear power plants and brought in natural gas from Russia is up to these days. It wasn't "Europe" being ok with it, just classic grift.

  By pedalpete 2025-02-2823:052 reply

  I was thinking about this recently, and wondering the EU will start moving away from the USD, further weakening the global strength of USD and America. They are already dealing with BRIC, and the potential of crypto (likely Bitcoin) to remove any single currency as providing power to any country.

  The US has benefitted hugely by being the reserve currency, but that strength is also a weakness that can be used against them, but only if the other countries collaborate, which the EU is most capable of.

  By 01100011 2025-03-017:321 reply
  The benefit of the reserve currency is our ability to run huge deficits and the result is a loss of our industrial base. It's a double-edged sword but one that ends up leaving us vulnerable. If we had a major non-nuclear conflict with China, for example, they would out build us the way we out built the Germans in WWII.
  By whatshisface 2025-03-018:082 reply
  There is no such thing as a major non-nuclear conflict.
  By epistasis 2025-03-010:541 reply
  As a US citizen horrified by the people that voted for Trump, this is my big fear too.
  We have never had a weaker president that caused so many self-inflicted wounds.
  This administration is shaping up to be self-immolation covered by the veneer of strength, for people that don't understand what strength is.
  The small fraction of Silicon Valley that bent the knee to this narcissist wanna-be-king have shown themselves to be unbelievably weak too. It's surprising. I have lost so much respect for so many people over the past 6 months, but I fear much more for the future prosperity that we have needlessly destroyed.
  By JPKab 2025-03-012:429 reply
  "As a US citizen horrified by the people that voted for Trump"
  Congratulations, you've been successfully propagandized to a point where you view people who don't vote the way you do as morally inferior. I'm sure that will help you persuade them in the future.
  "This administration is shaping up to be self-immolation covered by the veneer of strength, for people that don't understand what strength is." Oh, so you know what strength is huh? Did you ever serve in the military? Do you even have friends who did?
  Interesting that you ignore the fact that the previous president was mentally incapable of the job for increasingly long intervals as his term progressed, and was so incompetent on the Afghanistan withdrawal that he projected tremendous weakness that acted as an invite for Putin to launch a full scale assault less than a year later.
  Biden did nothing for Silicon Valley, other than try to regulate AI to a point where only a small handful of massive companies had foundation models. Marc Andreesen didn't support Trump until AFTER the Biden administration bureaucrats met with him and told him they would ensure that they would only allow a small handful of foundation AI companies that they tightly regulated to exist. He was so horrified that he switched over.
  The moral inversion it takes to claim that the people willing to stand agains the Valley's intense social conformity "weak" is also revealing about how brainwashed you truly are. You're just part of the mob, and if you lived in a super conservative place, you'd be part of that mob too. Freethinking requires courage, and I see none of it in the typical SV limousine liberal. Just a bunch of millionaires who hate the billionaires they envy.

  By ApolloFortyNine 2025-03-016:326 reply

  It's been US policy for years to beg NATO members to increase military spending, it took the war in Ukraine for them to finally do it.

  Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.

  But honestly I don't know why this entire comment section has turned to NATO NATO NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO. And if the Budapest Memorandum is what you're referencing, France and UK signed too. It's not as if the US hasn't contributed to the war already.

  By Epa095 2025-03-018:112 reply

  > Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.

  No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself.

  To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states

    Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. 
  

  It comes back again in 2014 [3], where they agree to:

    aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade
  

  A decade after 2014 is 2024, and most, but not all, countries managed.

  1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

  2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

  3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

  By ulnarkressty 2025-03-017:311 reply

  Not quite:

  > Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be.

  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/

  By basisword 2025-03-017:341 reply

  I didn’t mention NATO, Ukraine, or the Budapest memorandum… Defence is only a part of this. The economy is a big part. Europe is far too reliant on US tech for example. Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic the US should no longer be relied upon in any capacity.

  By ignoramous 2025-03-019:511 reply
  > Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic
  I mean, that's true for any democracy. The EU has its fair share of them elected to high offices.

  By lambdasquirrel 2025-03-016:462 reply

  The flip side of this is that the NATO countries have traditionally toed the U.S. stance on diplomatic matters, even on issues that are quite unpopular at home. The understanding abroad is that the U.S. can dictate what it wants, but then the Allies will simply drag their feet.

  By PartiallyTyped 2025-03-0112:55
  More Danish men died per capita than American men when the Us invoked article 5 and had us in the Middle East for the nth time.
  By _bin_ 2025-03-017:201 reply
  [flagged]

  By meitham 2025-03-017:11

  >>> Ukraine isn’t in NATO

  Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.

  By sebazzz 2025-03-018:41

  > Ukraine isn't in NATO.

  Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there.

  It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.

  By scyzoryk_xyz 2025-03-0116:021 reply

  Similarly to the U.S., European countries are also democracies and it is a fact of life for us that administrations and leadership change. Today it’s the U.S. that’s not a reliable partner, yesterday it was Poland or someone else. Authoritarian regimes like to criticize this as unstable, but it’s worth noting that this surface level lack of stability also means frequent recalibration and stress testing. In consequence there is a deeper stability and fitness.

  The point of a democracy is to also have guardrails by splitting up executive, legislative and judicial powers - the U.S. is still not a dictatorship. European leaders know this, and professional politicians know that you can go hot and cold very fast. Today there is drama - tomorrow might rapidly turn over and flip.

  By ttyprintk 2025-03-0116:13

  And to get even more practical, “stability” is a comfort word rather than proof of a local optimum. We are not surprised when a dictatorship subdues an uprising because we are not surprised there was an uprising.

  By kavenkanum 2025-03-0113:57

  It seems that this was a very cold and unexpected shower for all of us in Europe (maybe except Hungary) and now there is a big focus on working together against our common enemy and finding other more reliable partners. It's a pity we were relying this much on Americans for so long... Now we have motivation to change approach. And do it fast!

  By drysine 2025-03-019:241 reply

  >they need to take control of their own destiny

  They could've understood this in 2014 when Nuland said "Fuck the EU"[0], and the US pressed on with the coup in the Ukraine setting off the chain of events that has led us all to where we are now.

  >Given the American people voted for this guy twice

  American people voted twice for George W. Bush, the second time after the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. This might have given a hint.

  [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

  By ttyprintk 2025-03-0116:272 reply
  I know this is pedantic, but the system selected Bush in his first election. Vietnam veteran and Southern Senator Al Gore won the popular vote. Only in his second election, as a wartime President, did Bush win the popular vote.

  By throwaind29k 2025-03-0114:273 reply

  What we are seeing from Europeans in response is rather weak sabre rattling.

  They don't seem to give an impression of being able to work out a coherent policy or show any initiative.

  The EU leaders, include Ursula Von Leyen speak big noble sounding words, but do very little.

  By ponector 2025-03-0120:26

  You can say the same about Trump, except words are not noble. Loud noise but do very little. Mainly pushing ally to accept the surrender terms.

  Btw, EU spent more than USA, both military and financially.

  By SecretDreams 2025-03-0114:30

  I hope that changes soon. America is marching towards becoming kings of the world or completely isolated until this admin goes out to pasture. I hope nobody wants to go back to kings.

  By arp242 2025-03-0114:16

  We can do both: prepare for a future without the US, while at the same time trying to make the best of the relationship with the current madcap US government. I don't think there's a conflict between those two. Completely burning bridges at this point seems unwise.

  By palominoz 2025-02-2823:48

  It's not a matter of taking control. For many reasons, starting from ww2 and later the U.s. summarized the west population common values and ethics, in a very simple and sharable way. In Europe this is not possible because there is too much cultural distance between the countries, but we are all equidistant from the U.s. That's why we are all NATO allies and why fundamentally for the u.s. eveything is possible. It's something that we all agree upon because otherwise we would be arguing with each other.

  By ZeroGravitas 2025-03-018:42

  They weren't bending the knee. They were treating Trump like a toddler because that's the best strategy to get concessions from him.

  Look at the theatre of the UK giving him the "unprecedented" letter from the King.

  Talk of "bending knees" just makes macho idiots think they're winning. It's more like distracting your really drunk friend with something shiny to stop him starting a bar fight or walking into traffic while hoping when he sobers up he'll change for the better, not continue his slide into becoming an permanent asshole.

  By svara 2025-03-0110:401 reply

  The historic strategic opportunity is for all of what remains of the free world to join the EU and become the 'rules based order' hegemon. Doesn't need to be literally the EU, a similar kind of organization would work.

  By throwaway48476 2025-03-020:33

  Rules based order never meant anything. Really it was just predictable stability.

  By insane_dreamer 2025-03-010:541 reply

  You can argue it’s been this way for a while, but it’s clear now that the US is no longer the leader of the free world.

  By DamnYuppie 2025-03-018:022 reply
  [flagged]

  By talldatethrow 2025-03-017:202 reply

  Personally most Trump supporters I know can only hope for a more Trumpian successor to Trump. Basically if JD Vance continues on his path he is looking like a sure thing for the Republican nomination obviously, but if any of Trump's tactics work he has a decent chance overall to ride that wave.

  By JKCalhoun 2025-03-018:111 reply
  I suspect the coming economy though will weigh in.
  By imcritic 2025-03-019:243 reply
  I bet the economy of U.S. will only prosper under Trump and Vance.
  By ModernMech 2025-03-0115:231 reply
  JD Vance, and Elon Musk for that matter, and really everyone else lacks the one thing even Trump haters admit Trump has: charisma. Even my feminist ex-wife loved him on the apprentice. Even to this day she think's he's a funny guy and is entertained by him. Fact of the matter is his charisma has formed a cult of personality around him.
  JD Vance, Elon Musk, Ron DeSantis, all of these guys who think they'll be able to take over the cult lack the key ingredient - the personality. Musk has a sort of cult among specifically the HN crowd, but we are small and generally people clock him as a weirdo creep.
  There is no successor to Trump, his movement dies with him. His age is our saving grace.
  By talldatethrow 2025-03-040:541 reply
  I have a feeling your dislike of Trump and possibly even conservatives is clouding your judgement. Vance is well liked by basically all Trump supporters.
  If Joe Biden has proven anything, it's that voters will vote for someone they barely like if they think it's helping their cause.
  The only issue in play here is how many voters think lower crime, less wasteful spending, less racist hiring practices, and less illegal immigration is something they like. If they decide those things matter to them, JD is more than likable and capable enough for them to get behind.

  By chewz 2025-03-0118:07

  > If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs.

  European leader are desperate because they realize obvious truth - US will soon implement regime changes all across Europe... European elites are simply not up to task of dealing with this new revolutionary era.

  By DrNosferatu 2025-02-2823:491 reply

  European Democracies need to start their own Alliance.

  By DrNosferatu 2025-03-010:43

  So, should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?

  By scop 2025-03-0118:551 reply

  The elephant in the room though is Europe. Trump wants Europe to step up and act more independently. Pay their fair share for NATO. Increase their active militaries.

  Here's another fact to remember: Trump told Europe to kill Nord stream pipeline during his first term. He didn't want them tied economically to Putin. He didn't want Europe to depend upon Putin! Why? Because he's Putin's ally? Or maybe he is trying to make strong, independent countries that act as a deterrent.

  That would be a hell of a deterrent, instead of old people with no kids droning on endlessly about NATO.

  By k__ 2025-03-0113:04

  In Germany, we just voted two man-babies (Merz and Söder) into power.

  The only hope I have, is they want bolster their ego with a strong EU.

  By PovilasID 2025-03-0416:32

  It is not that people do not realize it is just not something you can do overnight. But once independent security system gets put in... I am sure there will be much less oral appeasement.

  By 99_00 2025-03-018:411 reply

  The leaders of Germany and France don’t see Ukraine as part of their destiny. And that’s their right.

  By ranguna 2025-03-0110:161 reply
  Sources?
  I've seen the contrary from Germany
  https://youtu.be/K-yAvfGxQXE

  By layer8 2025-02-2823:033 reply

  Unfortunately, there are European leaders like Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban who expressed support for Trump in reaction to this event.

  By lm28469 2025-03-011:403 reply

  Who cares about Hungary? Get France, Germany, the UK, Poland, the baltics and that's plenty enough

  By cmrdporcupine 2025-02-2823:171 reply

  Can we really put Orban in the category of "European leaders"?

  Seems more like "Putin followers"

  By shiko_1st 2025-03-0119:05

  [dead]

  By casenmgreen 2025-02-2822:261 reply

  Everything must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence.

  You can't force people, you can't trick people.

  I may be wrong, but I think enough voters were deceived by Donald that the election was no longer well-informed.

  That's how he got into power.

  To the extent that's true, USA no longer had genuine elections.

  By imcritic 2025-03-019:21

  Riiight. Just when someone you don't like gets elected as a president - you instantly claim that that country isn't democratic anymore.

  By coryrc 2025-03-011:512 reply

  We need a constitutional convention to fix the legislative branch. People in Wyoming should not have 10x the representation as people in California. Without the complicity of the legislative branch Trump's power would be limited much more.

  We need mixed-member districts and eliminate the senate<->state connection and/or repeal the 17th amendment. Bicameral is no longer suited for the world we live in.

  By tempestn 2025-03-018:531 reply

  Unfortunately short of a revolution, there is no realistic way to pass any kind of meaningful constitutional amendment in the US. And it's hard to imagine that fact changing, which makes me pessimistic for the long term future of the country.

  By coryrc 2025-03-0123:181 reply
  Hence constitutional convention.

  By corey_moncure 2025-03-023:37

  You can change the rules of the game, yes. Then we will simply be playing a different game, and strategies will update accordingly.

  By kardianos 2025-03-011:102 reply

  This is exactly what VP Vance and President Trump has asked the EU to do. They want them to pay more for their own defense... So, yeah.

  By bjoli 2025-03-0117:57

  They also turned the US into a liability. I don't think any western nation will rely on the US for anything for a long time.

  By ModernMech 2025-03-0115:25

  Presumably their defense is our defense - that was the whole point of NATO.

  By daveguy 2025-02-2823:482 reply

  You must have missed the visit from the French president. Macron whooped Trump harder than Stormy. That's probably why his fragile little ego needed someone to tell at.

  By ttyprintk 2025-03-019:14

  A lot of Americans missed that cue. I think that old-fashioned Americans avoid applying psychoanalysis to politics because they’re afraid to fit in with cynics.

  By jasonlotito 2025-03-010:021 reply

  Trump tried to grope him, and he wasn't having it. I don't understand how anyone thinks this is acceptable.

  By daveguy 2025-03-014:03

  Yes. I was speaking in admiration when I said Macron whooped Trump.

  By mihaaly 2025-03-0112:15

  More like the europeans acted like adult gentleman. Not like a frustrated and insecure imbecile, as the trend seems to be for representatives of the people in some places. Do not mix up handling a dangerous child with loaded weapon in the hand nicely with relying on him. They go home and organize the way the situation deserves. Trump is a dumb loser anyway, riding the waves of mass frustration without comprehending much beyond whistles and bells and shiny shiny things, a child would find center of the life.

  By helsinki 2025-03-017:093 reply

  [flagged]

  By MrDrMcCoy 2025-03-017:42
  That's why I voted for Harris. I hate her guts, but she would have at least tried to not sink her ship. Trump seems to think that a fire in the engine room will make it go faster...
  By FranzFerdiNaN 2025-03-017:36
  You’re looking at the burning pile of shit that president Musk is creating and still thik that a Harris presidency would be worse?
  By pjc50 2025-03-017:231 reply
  Harris would not have done anything like this and you know it.
  By userbinator 2025-03-017:301 reply
  [flagged]

  By ttoinou 2025-03-017:01

  [flagged]

  By surfpel 2025-02-2822:021 reply

  [flagged]

  By twism 2025-02-2822:251 reply
  [flagged]

  By nataliste 2025-03-010:04

  Oh, no. Don't do that. Europe footing its own bill for its own defense and increasing their industrial output is the last thing Donald Trump wants. Really.

  By jim-jim-jim 2025-03-013:573 reply

  I think most Americans of various stripes would endorse this. Europe is more than welcome to saber-rattle on its own budget.

  By dangjc 2025-03-016:593 reply
  I think most Americans value freedom and reject tyranny.
  By _DeadFred_ 2025-03-016:53
  Am American and yeah no.
  By drawkward 2025-03-016:111 reply
  How is defending against Putin's encroachment on a soverign country "saber-rattling"?

  By lordhexd 2025-03-016:484 reply

  They could soon realize China and Russia may actually make better allies. Might not be what the consensus on HN prefers, but maybe it’s time to look east.

  We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit

  By troupo 2025-03-018:232 reply

  Ukraine was Russia's ally. Russian businesses operated in Ukraine. Russian entertainment was made in Ukraine. There was effectively no borders between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine was one of the most pro-Russian countries among the post-Soviet countries.

  Look what being an ally with Russia brought.

  By artem2471 2025-03-0214:33
  That’s not really accurate. Ukraine was not a member of either defence or economic blocs, like CSTO, or Customs Union, headed by Russia. Also some of the Ukrainian governments were effectively against relying on Russia, Yuschenko 2005-2010. Yet, there were extensive economic ties up to 2014, and some cultural ties up to 2022. Its not black and white.
  By drysine 2025-03-019:502 reply
  >Look what being an ally with Russia brought.
  More like what becoming an ally of the US in 2014 brought.

  By Renaud 2025-03-019:151 reply

  China has little to nothing to gain from being an allied of Russia.

  China needs to export to the West to survive. The Russian market is not able to absorb what China needs to sell.

  China has already distanced itself from Russia. China’s happy to sell Russia what it can buy, but there is no real upside to that relationship.

  By throwaway48476 2025-03-020:38

  China benefits either way it goes.

  By anon7725 2025-03-018:06

  > We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit

  And you think that will happen with China and Russia as allies? Jesus. This thread is brigaded to hell by trolls.

  By DamnYuppie 2025-03-018:071 reply

  Wait who would ally with China/Russia, Europe or US? I mean either of those are a deathknell for Europe. China will not defend them against Russia. Heck I am not sure China can keep its hands off of Russia's oil fields as they lack their own resources. It would be fun to watch though.

  What collective benefit are you referring to exactly that isn't going to be profit? You think Russia and China care about your ideologies? China will exploit you and Russia will do what Russia always does. They all want to gang up and invade America?? They would have better things to do then that if Europe became their pet.

  By ngcazz 2025-03-0111:17

  China, famously exploiting poorer nations through infrastructure investment and a focus on trade.

• By lifeisstillgood 2025-02-2820:1913 reply

  I got this weird dissonance - like this was a science from a TV show about the White House, because no-one, I mean no-one would ever do that inpublic. Apart from common courtesy, even basic management training says praise in public, criticise in private.

  Just doing this in front of the world’s media … it’s hard to understand

  By obelos 2025-02-2820:315 reply

  It makes more sense when you interpret it as an attempt at humiliation, not diplomacy.

  By tdb7893 2025-02-2822:533 reply

  I'm less convinced this was planned because I've met people like this in real life. Criticizing someone for showing disrespect while being incredibly disrespectful yourself seems like abusive parent 101.

  Also, the fact they talk down to him about the war in Ukraine of all things is pretty shocking, like he wouldn't be there if he didn't understand the situation in Ukraine (it's not like he was there being extorted for minerals because he thinks things are going amazingly). It seems weird from a global policy perspective but on brand if you're just an asshole. Either way, truly an embarrassing day to be an American.

  By yibg 2025-03-012:221 reply

  And a performance to the MAGA base. One thing we've learned about Trump is, he'll do and say whatever outlandish thing if it'll gain / keep his votes.

  By sebazzz 2025-03-018:502 reply
  They literally said: “This makes great TV” - and both right-wing Fox and the Russian media are cheering.
  It worries me that no-one in the Republican Party looks at it and says: Russia is our enemy right, why are we doing exactly what they want and benefits them?

  By checker659 2025-02-2821:44

  And to fabricate consent, probably

  By theothermelissa 2025-03-0112:28

  I agree. I'd even go further; I suspect this show was about redefining the term "diplomacy" for the conservative base.

  I think it's a step in a larger plan to start moving the Republican foreign policy platform into include a greater emphasis on diplomacy. Since diplomacy's been seen as the "weaker and less effective" path for so long it needs a rebrand in order to sell it to a strength-worshipping constituency.

  By adamredwoods 2025-03-011:081 reply

  It's Putin's plan to isolate Ukraine, and what a stroke of luck Trump and Vance are completely on board with Putin's rhetoric. Soon he can affect Ukraine elections and retake it. The war angle didn't work as he wanted.

  By scott_w 2025-03-017:52

  Ukraine’s constitution doesn’t allow for elections during martial law. This is pretty reasonable, and the UK did a similar thing whilst we were under threat of invasion by the Nazis.

  Realistically it’s not possible to hold a free and fair election while:

  - A foreign power would bomb polling stations

  - An invading power would try to interfere in other ways

  - Millions of voters are displaced (within and outside the country)

  - Millions of voters are in the armed forces at the front line

  - Voting districts are occupied by an invading force and can’t really vote

  That last point is pretty key, too. How do you ensure only Ukrainian citizens vote and aren’t doing so with a gun to their head? What if you manage to do this and Russia refuses to recognise your election because “you counted votes from legally Russian citizens” (which Russia claims the occupied regions are)? Then if you don’t count those votes, those Russian oblasts suddenly become Ukrainian and Russia claims you disenfranchised legitimate votes to rig an election.

  All of this is why Russia (and by extension the USA) position of holding elections in Ukraine is complete nonsense.

  By pjc50 2025-02-2820:241 reply

  The public bullying is intentional.

  By dygd 2025-02-2821:381 reply
  Very much so. Trump even said it, "This is good TV". What an embarrassment.
  By swat535 2025-03-012:212 reply
  And Zelensky ended up apologizing, rather quickly:
  https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1895618072905384351
  The whole thing was just sad to watch. Politics have hit a level of inanity unimaginable..

  By rich_sasha 2025-02-2821:01

  I thought it looked like an episode of The Apprentice.

  By jorblumesea 2025-02-2820:466 reply

  You're witnessing the collapse of American soft power, economic power, and our transition to an authoritarian isolationist state. Some of us accept it while others still have to grasp the situation.

  The death of the post cold war neoliberal world order and the death of the American century. to be replaced by... ?

  By BLKNSLVR 2025-02-2823:053 reply
  The thing that I find strange about it is that it's being pursued actively, from the inside, as opposed to it being forced on them by an stringer outside force (ie. China). The US has chosen to retract from it's global power and influence.
  Mind-blowing, except, kinda-sorta, for the fact that the effort is helmed by a (short-term thinking) businessman rather than a seasoned politician with familiarity with, or even the ability to consider, long term consequences of actions and decisions and the interplay of other countries and their leaders.
  By consteval 2025-02-2823:17

  Nearly every decision made since the late seventies has been with the intention of making the most money in the shortest amount of time. Not just in government. In everyday people’s lives, in companies.

  And it always fails long term. We lose so, so much and then we just ignore it and do it again. We’re getting to a point where we don’t even remember where we started.

  This has been a long time coming, IMO. You can only be selfish for so long before you implode. If everyone is selfish, you’re living on borrowed time.

  By daveguy 2025-02-2823:55

  Oh, Russia is still the outside force pulling Trump's puppet strings. They just did such a good propaganda job with "Russia Russia Russia" that people are afraid to say it.
  By Hikikomori 2025-03-010:08
  Based on trump's wants around Canada and Greenland it doesn't sound like you'll be very isolationist, more like a bully.
  By dangjc 2025-03-017:08
  China will benefit the most from this. Europe has zero interest in backing up the US in a fight for Pacific dominance. Good luck trying to form a trading block that excludes China now.
  By lyu07282 2025-03-0112:41
  I think this is exactly right, but very discordian. It shouldn't happen, it makes no sense. No country in the world has benefited more from the post cold war, neoliberal world order, than the US. It's the very foundation of all of America's wealth and power. It makes zero sense why the imperialist-core would willingly step down from it's bloody iron throne it has worked for 80 years to create for itself. What was the point of it all then? All the wars, all the coups, all the covert-action, all the forced liberalization, the neocolonialism and the establishment of the liberal world order?
  If this is genuinely what is happening, this can only be some sort of hostile takeover enabled by the legitimate grievances in the domestic depoliticized populations. Neoliberalism made itself vulnerable to be destroyed from within, it's greed went too far, the inequities to much to be sustainable, the post-political ideology became so extreme that it forgot the old lessons of empire, bread and circuses.
  Or as Merkel and Thatcher said, "There is no alternative". Wanna bet?
  By nxm 2025-02-2821:162 reply
  [flagged]
  By wombatpm 2025-03-016:32

  Are we giving up our bases? Sending all personnel home, disbanding some brigades or a fleet? No? Then we are not saving any tax dollars. We’ve just made it more expensive to maintain our global empire.
  By refurb 2025-03-016:015 reply
  [flagged]

  By CraftingLinks 2025-03-018:241 reply

  Trump called Zelensky a dictator in public, did he not? Zelensky, democratically elected, president of a democratic country, invaded by a tyran, a non-democratic and extreme anti-western attitude, was called a dictator. That is hard to understand, until you realise Trump tries to man-handle an extortion deal out of Ukrain...and now because the man doesn't bend over backwards he's disrespectful? That man showed a lot of courage in my book.

  By TrapLord_Rhodo 2025-03-0114:362 reply
  [flagged]

  By hayst4ck 2025-02-2820:254 reply

  > it’s hard to understand

  It's not. If you're a remotely rational American right now you are experiencing large amounts of grief.

  This is just the denial stage of grief.

  By scoofy 2025-02-2821:084 reply
  Grief is a good way to put it. I know everyone is reinforcing their priors, and mine has been the "Housing Theory of Everything" for the last decade -- and longer than that if you count my mid-2000's (admittedly naive) urban-environmentalism advocacy. It's was a pretty niche area for advocacy until recently... I'm pretty sure I was the first official Strong Towns member in SF.
  I'm just blown away that even after the first Trump presidency, and now during the second, that the left still has no serious intention of addressing any of the legitimate grievances that working class has. It's genuinely bananas to see so many people fleeing California for Texas and hearing "good riddance." I'm basically broken at this point, and I feel like fighting for basic, practical and sustainable policies, policies that just make sense, is pointless.
  https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
  https://www.strongtowns.org/about
  By Trasmatta 2025-02-2821:032 reply
  I've been going through a huge amount of grief since the election. I thought I had moved onto acceptance, but anger keeps resurfacing.
  By wilg 2025-02-2821:271 reply
  [flagged]
  By DamnYuppie 2025-03-018:094 reply
  [flagged]

  By kragen 2025-03-0110:41

  Trump said toward the end of it, "This is gonna make great television." Remember he's a reality TV show star, not a diplomat or politician.

  By hd4 2025-02-2820:39

  Yeah it's incredible when the mask drops this far.

  Trump is a pathetic fuck, but this lines up with how he only ever plays to the domestic audience in advancing protectionist interests. We're feeling that dissonance because this kind of protectionist thinking is extremely rare, basically unheard of these days for world leaders.

  By eric_cc 2025-03-012:011 reply

  [flagged]

  By taberiand 2025-03-019:21

  Yeah, and the emperor has no clothes

  By anonu 2025-03-0111:56

  Which is why Zelensky mishandled the event. He should have just kept his mouth shut in front of the media. Especially since he's not as articulate in English.

  By userbinator 2025-03-017:29

  I think it's an act. They're putting on a show for Putin.

  There's that old saying about best friends and worst enemies...

  By verisimi 2025-02-2820:511 reply

  > no-one, I mean no-one would ever do that inpublic

  I agree. It seemed to me like Zelensky initiated the public display. Both trump and jd Vance we also commenting on his inappropriate public statements.

  By Sakos 2025-03-017:04

  "Grab her by the pussy" Trump and "childless cat ladies" JD Vance aren't really people to listen to on what statements are inappropriate.

• By Animats 2025-02-2821:2517 reply

  On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from Ukraine. Most of the minerals mentioned, except titanium, are un-mined deposits. Or things the US has plenty of already, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and iron.

  Here's a rundown:

  - Rare earths:

  I've mentioned the MP Minerals, Mountain Pass, CA mine before. The US doesn't have enough rare earth refining capability, and China won't export the technology. So US ore goes to China for processing. Or did, until DoD paid for a separation plant at Mountain Pass. That problem is close to being solved. That new separation plant is running. A plant for the final step, making magnet-ready metal, has been built in Texas, again by MP Minerals, and it's about ready to open.

  What's happened with rare earths is not that they're rare. It's that China undercut US prices so much that the Mountain Pass mine went bankrupt. Twice. In 2015, there was a rare earths glut. Look at WSJ rare earths articles back to 2011.

  There are large un-mined rare earth deposits in Colorado and Wyoming, with startups talking about mining them. Whether this makes economic sense is unclear. If all those start up, the price will crash again and they all go bust.

  Three years ago, the US rare earths situation looked bad. Not today.

  - Uranium

  The US has plenty of uranium resources. Canada and the US are historically the biggest producers.

  - Titanium

  Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in Tennessee. See https://iperionx.com/ Are those guys for real? Not clear.

  - Lithium

  The US produces about 75% of the lithium it uses. New deposits have been found in Arkansas:

  https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/unlocking-ar...

  And in Nevada:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCWeZiVsotc

  - Graphite

  China is the leading producer, but Canada and Norway are ramping up. There hasn't been US production of natural graphite since the 1950s. US production of synthetic graphite satisfies most US demand. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp1802J) Several new synthetic graphite plants are being built in the US.

  As we've seen in rare earths, when the cheaper sources raise their prices, domestic production increases. It seems to take about three to five years to get a big mining operation going.

  Quietly, during the previous administration, there was funding for US mineral projects in rare earths, graphite, and lithium. It's no secret, but most coverage is from sites that cover mining and minerals.

  By casenmgreen 2025-02-2822:197 reply

  The minerals deal made no sense.

  1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.

  2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US.

  I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.

  What was actually going on?

  We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this".

  That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.

  I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.

  Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.

  In any event, USA is now out of the game.

  A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete.

  All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.

  By lo_zamoyski 2025-02-2823:372 reply
  The mineral deal has at least three purposes[0]:
  1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
  2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
  3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
  Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
  [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...
  By casenmgreen 2025-03-019:073 reply
  > 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
  The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.
  Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.
  > 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
  In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there.
  > 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
  It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
  By Jedd 2025-03-010:393 reply
  I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this.
  First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people.
  Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)
  By an_guy 2025-03-016:371 reply

  Third, if US owns the resources and Russia tries to seize it, US would have legit reason to send their troops to Ukraine.

  By henrikschroder 2025-03-0110:58

  > First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims

  We're talking about someone who appears to believe a trade deficit means you're somehow being screwed or getting the short end of a deal. That's mercantilistic nonsense. It's economical thinking on par with a child who believes Scrooge McDuck is a good capitalist.

  By IAmGraydon 2025-03-0116:52

  I think it's likely they know Putin will not honor any peace deal. So they have to figure out a way to blow up this deal and blame it on Ukraine or they'll end up with egg on their face.
  By insane_dreamer 2025-02-2823:101 reply
  There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits.
  Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
  By Swenrekcah 2025-02-2823:37

  I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.
  By sgt 2025-03-019:381 reply
  I think they realized this, and the only way Trump and JD Vance & team knew how to backtrack on it, was to behave like bullies and freeze Zelensky out. Since they are well known to be bullies already (but not always), this came sort of naturally.
  By leptons 2025-02-2822:342 reply
  >What was actually going on?
  I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.

  By code_biologist 2025-02-2822:043 reply

  I've seen speculation that rare earth mining is environmentally destructive enough that it faces massive (expensive) regulatory hurdles in the US. Much easier to pay politicians in less developed countries to do it there.

  https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...

  By Animats 2025-02-2822:39
  Mountain Pass, one bankruptcy back, beat that problem. It took some new technology. The system is closer to closed-loop, rather than using huge amounts of water and producing huge amounts of sludge in evaporation ponds. That's what the mines in China do, and the sludge ponds are visible from orbit.
  Here's the Sierra Club report from 2011.[1] They were OK with the mine. So was the state of California and the US EPA. Problem solved.
  Then in 2015, after all this was working, China cut the price of rare earths.[2] Mountain Pass mine shut down, and Molycorp, the owner, went bankrupt. But the equipment was stored and maintained. When the price of rare earths from China went back up the next owner, MP Minerals, bought the assets and restarted operations.
  This time, the new buyers made long-term deals with the US DoD and General Motors to guarantee a market at a price at which they could operate. That seems to be working.
  Much news coverage of mineral issues tends to lack background. Better info is available, but it's on mining industry sites, in USGS reports, and in places most people don't read. Punditry is cheap. Reporting is expensive.
  [1] https://www.desertreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DR_S...
  [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2015/05/15/chinese...
  By rjbwork 2025-02-2822:24
  One reason they're running roughshod over the EPA, among other agencies.
  By barbequeer 2025-02-2822:181 reply
  if there's one thing we can be sure of with the current administration, it's that regulatory hurdles aren't going to stop them doing what they want

  By cmrdporcupine 2025-02-2821:311 reply

  Not sure why you're counting Canadian uranium deposits on the American balance sheet.

  So far at least, these are under our own control and we still have the free will to decide how they are traded.

  Unless the new regime in the US really wants to show its true hand, I guess.

  Maybe we can toss a 25% export tariff on them, since the US is trying to strangle our economy anyways.

  By amluto 2025-03-019:00

  Titanium is an odd duck here IMO. Titanium is abundant in the Earth’s crust, and titanium ore is fairly inexpensive. We use the ore for all kinds of unglamorous things, e.g. paint. The hard part is turning that ore into nice pieces of metal —- the process is complicated and expensive. While China produces an outsized share of titanium ore, the US has some large-scale operations that turn titanium ore into metal. As far as I know, the only real limit on our domestic production is demand, and demand is limited because the prices are far too high for most applications.

  I recall various sources saying that we’re just about to have a revolution in titanium processing, kind of like how aluminum went from being more expensive than gold to being cheap. It hasn’t happened yet, and I wish Iperion luck!

  By kulahan 2025-03-010:212 reply

  I’ve heard many, many times that one of the biggest problems with nuclear power plants today is simply sourcing fuel. Obviously a large part of that would be due to international scrutiny and security laws, not to mention trustworthy employees to hold up all of this, but I was seriously under the impression that actually GETTING it is the difficult part.

  Is that not a supply issue? I admit I only know a bit about the topic, but it’s the only one without a linked source.

  By Animats 2025-03-0120:071 reply
  The US seems to have only one uranium enrichment facility left - URENCO, in New Mexico.[1] Uranium mining as a US industry is down to 340 people.[2] That used to be a much larger US industry. It's not lack of ore. It's low prices.[3]
  [1] https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/index.html
  [2] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/
  [3] https://nuclearinsider.com/reviving-the-atom-charting-the-co...
  By DeepSeaTortoise 2025-03-0113:181 reply
  The problem is that western nuclear tech isn't very vertically integrated.
  If you buy a Russian nuclear power plant, Rosatom takes care of absolutely everything.
  If you buy a powerplant from anywhere else, you've got to juggle hundreds of various contractors and companies at various stages.
  So if you've built your system, there will be only very few fuel suppliers left, whose fuel product is approved for usage with all the components.
  And if one of those suppliers has problems or goes bankrupt (since nuclear fuel is an aweful product to make money with: Very low numbers, extremely strict regulations, very expensive handling and processing, a very unstable and slow growing market, constantly new requirements and all of your customers have huge legal teams and deep pockets), you're going to have a lot of difficulty finding a replacement.

  By insane_dreamer 2025-02-2823:071 reply

  You're right, but for Trump, there doesn't have to be an actual deal, there just has to be the _appearance_ of a deal. He just needs to be able to repeat that $500 billion number -- it doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not or will ever happen or not. It's like Mexico paying for the wall.

  By mindslight 2025-03-016:381 reply
  Maybe Trump isn't actually working for Russia/China, and is just waiting for the people of the US to start a gofundme to buy him off so he goes away.

  By hedora 2025-03-011:05

  Thanks for the detailed report, but if you watch the VP debate, it’s clear that Trump’s entire economic campaign platform was based on promising to do stuff that Biden already accomplished, and to lie and claim it hadn’t been done.

  Trump also claimed he had no intention of implementing Project 2025, but that’s what he’s doing.

  I’m not sure what the correct response is, but anyone that doesn’t think Trump constantly lies is willfully ignorant.

  The only explanation I can come up with for this administration’s actions is intentional sabotage of the US economy and democracy. It matches 100% of the actions they have taken so far.

  By cyrillite 2025-02-2823:06

  Where can one reliably learn about rare earths in the supply chain, refining abilities, what’s actually important for which tech, etc? I feel like I read very different views on this stuff all the time at different levels of granularity.

  By WhyNotHugo 2025-03-013:15

  You can aspire to control minerals because you need them, or you can aspire to control minerals because you don't want others to have them.

  By scythe 2025-03-010:011 reply

  >Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in [...]

  Titanium is very common (ninth most common crustal element IIRC). Generally there are always deposits. It's more important to have the infrastructure already in place because it's obtained in such large quantities.

  By DeepSeaTortoise 2025-03-0113:26

  Also Titanium is an awful metal to work with.

  Steel has the nice property of turning into any product with but a stern look, titanium torches your factory down if it doesn't like the air quality during its massage sessions.

  By brightball 2025-03-010:361 reply

  I thought I remembered reading that Ukraine was the largest source of neon gas in the world and that it was necessary for lasers that make advanced microchips?

  Remember reading that sometime on here when the war started I think.

  By etc-hosts 2025-03-013:051 reply
  look up Ingas and Cryoin

  By Karellen 2025-02-2821:551 reply

  > On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from Ukraine.

  Need's got nothing to do with it. Bullies don't take what you have because they need it, they take it because that's what you have, and they want to take it away from you, just to be taking it away from you.

  For Trump, it is not enough that (as he perceives the situation) he wins, rather than (as he perceives) everyone else loses. Even people's whose backs are up against the wall. Especially people whose backs are up against the wall. If you don't exploit the weakest player at the table, why are you even playing?

  (Not that Trump knows anything about gambling... who the fuck loses money running a casino... on multiple separate occasions...)

  Trump isn't making deals based on carefully considered advantages and concessions. He's just grasping his tiny hands at whatever comes in reach, whether or not he needs it, like the half-wit schoolyard thug he is.

  By Hikikomori 2025-02-2823:561 reply
  I dont understand how anyone is not seeing that trump just want to gobble up parts of Ukraine for his own gain, it's no better than the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Trump is just angry he's late to the party. There will be no guarantees for Ukraine and no concessions for Russia once this deal is signed.

  By m463 2025-02-2822:42

  Maybe they don't have strategic minerals, but they do have strategic democracy.

  By Findecanor 2025-03-017:561 reply

  Perhaps this is really about keeping out potential European car battery manufacturers from sourcing their raw materials from Ukraine in the future. Trump is under the influence of Musk after all.

  By DeepSeaTortoise 2025-03-0113:23

  Despite being sold as the "mineral deal" to the public, it has nearly nothing to do with them and doesn't give the US any significant control over them.

  It's all about establishing a semi-sovereign fund for Ukraine (slowly turning fully sovereign, due to how it's financed), focused on reconstructing Ukraine.

  By cookiengineer 2025-03-016:091 reply

  Note that there's an actual chance Trump will be so narcisstic to make the US lose its alliance with Canada over some rumor he heard on X which has no basis in any of the statistics, and Canada can now join the EU because of its shared border with Denmark.

  The Trump administration doesn't give a single shit about truth, it's always about power grabs for them. If I were you I'd digitize any copy of school books I can find on the internet, because they will be gone very soon.

  By monkeywork 2025-03-016:391 reply
  As a Canadian that EU join comment is laughable. We've had a border with France way longer... We aren't getting into the EU on some silly Island no one cares about border... Don't undermine yourself with such silly nonsense

  By torpid 2025-03-013:19

  That's not the point. The point is making Ukraine pay off the defense contractors rather than the American taxpayers. Trump made a campaign promise to end the war, and was overwhelmingly reelected on those promises, and has so far kept them.

  By DeepSeaTortoise 2025-03-0113:45

  The "minerals deal" isn't one but in name, no idea why it's being sold as such.

  It's really just a Ukrainian sovereign reconstruction fund, with the option for the US to buy its way in. Also the fund is financed through Ukraine's natural resource extraction.

  The crux being:

  No one else can buy into the fund. So if Ukraine is rebuilt and then disappears from the map, the US pretty much owns the fund, together with whoever is recognized as Ukraine's exile government, and with it a huge portion of Ukraine's industries.

  So even if Russia were to take over Ukraine, all the money making stuff is still co-managed by the fund.

  And since Ukraine is the exclusive financial benefactor of the fund, whoever takes over Ukraine ends up facing an exile government with an utterly ridiculous budget.

  And if they wanted to just expropriate the fund, they'd have to expropriate the US gov, too. Good luck with that.

  .

  The fund is a REALLY good idea, but the way it's sold to the public and Ukraine refusing to agree to it is ... odd at best.