"The immediate risk is not that the US invades Europe, but that it withdraws support from Ukraine."
Well that's an unfortunate bit of question-begging. You ought to have either supported the very odd claim that the US has not yet withdrawn support from Ukraine, or simply left it out; your argument would have been stronger for its absence.
The US has partially withdrawn support, but there are still weapon sales, intelligence and targeting info, cyber defense, drone financing, and other things. We could and should be doing much more but withdrawal of current support would hurt Ukraine.
I liked Havel's paragraphs on what keeps the system going because, I had asked that question some 20 years ago to a Polish economist. His answer then was "The Terror".
Sorry to say, but especially appearing in the Times, this essay had a touch too much armchair warrior for me. If the President of the USA is threatening Greenlanders with the loss of their sovereignty, the first responsibility for Americans is to consider what they should do to stop it (I do understand that you hail from Ireland, but the piece was published in the US paper of record). I also wonder what game theory says if one of the players is clearly too cognitively impaired to understand the stakes ("Psychologically, I need to own it"). As far as I can tell, it is not entirely clear if the assured financial destruction in the aftermath of the bazooka would be mutual (which was the foundation of strategic thinking in the Cold War) or if the US would come out on top. I don't think it was designed with the US as intended target. So I am inclined to give European leaders some slack. Most of them have negotiated directly with Trump and are presumably better judges of the situation than those of us on the sidelines.
"The implication, then, is that the European Union might be much more credible with the Bessents of the world if they could more readily bind themselves to take painful or difficult steps to counter aggression. However, the European Union’s member states often look at the problem differently. They are worried about delegating security power to the European Commission, for fear it will do something that hurts their economic interests or other national interests. The Schelling argument is that this increases their flexibility, but weakens their ability to demonstrate resolve against outside threats."
You could be describing the central problem of Canadian federalism here.
Just read the NYT piece, and I came here to say bravo, and brave!
I like that the anti-coercion instrument could be used against persons. It's too late now but Bezos got married in Venice and all the tech bros showed up. It would have been a shame if something had happened to the visas of some of them....
On a more serious note, retaliating could be costly, at least before things deescalate, and Europe should be ready to compensate those europeans who suffer from the retaliation. Not easy but doable. Of course, the big downside risk is that all of this will further encourage country-level nationalism in Europe, at the same time as the EU countries are remilitarizing. We'll see but, again, nice piece.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, conservative bellwether in The Daily Telegraph, editorializing today (Jan 21) that international investors should get out of the U.S. Treasury bond market:
"Trump has crossed all lines: it is time to cut off his global credit card. America has lost its credibility. The only thing that can stop the president is the bond market"
It seems to me (and I'm just a retired small town administrator from the Midwest) (and the skeeviest sort of 'peopIe' I ever had to deal with were the loot-and-run real estate developers) (which, I guess, is a sort of qualifying thing, given the character and behavior of Drumpf and the Three Stooges noted herein); but,
My recent reading of the alliances, strengths and movements in the Ukraine war suggest that their walking away, to a large degree, from the connivery coming at them from Washington and the transnational financialist mafia, would lose the Ukrainians nada. They've found other resources, including their own.
"The immediate risk is not that the US invades Europe, but that it withdraws support from Ukraine."
Well that's an unfortunate bit of question-begging. You ought to have either supported the very odd claim that the US has not yet withdrawn support from Ukraine, or simply left it out; your argument would have been stronger for its absence.
The US has partially withdrawn support, but there are still weapon sales, intelligence and targeting info, cyber defense, drone financing, and other things. We could and should be doing much more but withdrawal of current support would hurt Ukraine.
Lately I've noticed that I've developed a cackle.
It's the sort of cackle that people get when they know a huge train wreck is coming, they can do nothing to prevent it, and nobody else has noticed.
This is old news to you, but some readers might find it interesting: https://paulwells.substack.com/cp/185300716
I liked Havel's paragraphs on what keeps the system going because, I had asked that question some 20 years ago to a Polish economist. His answer then was "The Terror".
Sorry to say, but especially appearing in the Times, this essay had a touch too much armchair warrior for me. If the President of the USA is threatening Greenlanders with the loss of their sovereignty, the first responsibility for Americans is to consider what they should do to stop it (I do understand that you hail from Ireland, but the piece was published in the US paper of record). I also wonder what game theory says if one of the players is clearly too cognitively impaired to understand the stakes ("Psychologically, I need to own it"). As far as I can tell, it is not entirely clear if the assured financial destruction in the aftermath of the bazooka would be mutual (which was the foundation of strategic thinking in the Cold War) or if the US would come out on top. I don't think it was designed with the US as intended target. So I am inclined to give European leaders some slack. Most of them have negotiated directly with Trump and are presumably better judges of the situation than those of us on the sidelines.
"The implication, then, is that the European Union might be much more credible with the Bessents of the world if they could more readily bind themselves to take painful or difficult steps to counter aggression. However, the European Union’s member states often look at the problem differently. They are worried about delegating security power to the European Commission, for fear it will do something that hurts their economic interests or other national interests. The Schelling argument is that this increases their flexibility, but weakens their ability to demonstrate resolve against outside threats."
You could be describing the central problem of Canadian federalism here.
Just read the NYT piece, and I came here to say bravo, and brave!
I like that the anti-coercion instrument could be used against persons. It's too late now but Bezos got married in Venice and all the tech bros showed up. It would have been a shame if something had happened to the visas of some of them....
On a more serious note, retaliating could be costly, at least before things deescalate, and Europe should be ready to compensate those europeans who suffer from the retaliation. Not easy but doable. Of course, the big downside risk is that all of this will further encourage country-level nationalism in Europe, at the same time as the EU countries are remilitarizing. We'll see but, again, nice piece.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, conservative bellwether in The Daily Telegraph, editorializing today (Jan 21) that international investors should get out of the U.S. Treasury bond market:
"Trump has crossed all lines: it is time to cut off his global credit card. America has lost its credibility. The only thing that can stop the president is the bond market"
It seems to me (and I'm just a retired small town administrator from the Midwest) (and the skeeviest sort of 'peopIe' I ever had to deal with were the loot-and-run real estate developers) (which, I guess, is a sort of qualifying thing, given the character and behavior of Drumpf and the Three Stooges noted herein); but,
My recent reading of the alliances, strengths and movements in the Ukraine war suggest that their walking away, to a large degree, from the connivery coming at them from Washington and the transnational financialist mafia, would lose the Ukrainians nada. They've found other resources, including their own.
Tim Long, Just Up the Hill from Lock 15.