They simply want chaos. This distracts from their corruption and authoritarian actions, it enables grift and market manipulation, it worsens conditions in other western countries which benefits them, oil price being high benefits their friend Putin, the list is long and grim.
It also harms US' Asian allies, which makes them more dependent on US energy, increasing US leverage to push them toward proxy war with China. Very similar to the situation in Europe!
Can you please describe this proxy war against China. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but you seem to also be implying that the US made Putin invade Ukraine.
> Russia stated that Ukraine joining NATO would start a war. The US began that process knowing Russia's reaction. Russia did what it said it would do.
This has nothing to do with reality. Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2008, but allies did not support it and that was the end of it. Yet, Russia still invaded in 2014, over the deepening EU-Ukraine economic relations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine...
Russia did not threaten anyone with war over the prospect of NATO membership. In the first years of the war, Russia did not even acknowledge that those were Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Russian government claimed that it was a civil war.
This is an intimidation tactic and not a real threat. If the vague threat is enough to prevent something from happening, then it has served its purpose. If not, then the vagueness gives an exit to do nothing.
Pretty much every country that has joined NATO since the end of the Cold War has seen a flood of such threats, Finland and Sweden most recently[1]:
"Finland's accession to Nato will cause serious damage to bilateral Russian-Finnish relations and the maintaining of stability and security in the Northern European region. Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to neutralise the threats to its national security that arise from this."
Russia has attacked only Georgia and Ukraine, the two countries that did not end up joining NATO. There, the threats achieved their goal and shaped the battlefield in favor of Russia, which was then exploited. Elsewhere, the fake act of "We're soooo concerned with our national security" did not yield the desired results, and Russians moved on.
Burns and many other Western diplomats have been surprisingly ignorant of such games, treat Russians as primitive savages who are incapable of manipulating people (despite it being a deeply ingrained feature of their culture), and take their words at face value, which produces the kind of memos Burns wrote. The 2008 decision to deny Georgia and Ukraine entry into NATO is nowadays widely considered a mistake. The views Burns held and promoted in the memo made the war more likely instead of preventing it.
> Burns warned of serious consequences arising from NATO’s eastward expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia
And then Ukraine accession disappeared from the policy menu. Then Putin annexed Crimea. Pretending Putin invaded Ukraine with any more strategic coherence than Trump going into Iran reveals a reality-defying bias in a source.
Was Russia invading South Ossetia and Crimea also engineered by the United States to switch Europe to American energy? Or is it more reasonable to just conclude that Russia is expansionist and Ukraine has been seeking the protection of an organization that has never been attacked by a major power?
Whatever the case, I'd love to hear your Asian proxy war plan. Japan and Korea vs China?
Georgia acceding to NATO was viewed no differently than Ukraine by Russia and Russia clearly stated that this would cause a war, which it did. It's strange to me that you think that the US had nothing to do with expanding NATO to these countries despite Russia's threats of war if this happened. What do you think the US' role was?
Regarding Asia, look at US' vying to have unfettered access for its Air Force over the Strait of Malacca, despite popular disfavor by Indonesians, after a $15 billion energy deal with their government. The US having command over the South Korean military - in what world is that in South Korea's interest? Vietnam's new dependence on US LNG as a result of the attack on Iran. Look at the disputes in the South China Sea despite the disputants having China as their biggest trading partner, and the disputes rising exactly at the time of the US' pivot to Asia. Same pattern with Taiwan - a plan that has been in place for decades but which has become a political token coinciding with the pivot to Asia.
Japan and Korea vs China sounds absurd doesn't it? Why would they pick a fight with their biggest trading partner, who also appears much stronger than them militarily? Surely it's not in their interest right? Yet that's exactly what we've been seeing (belligerence from Japan's PM over Taiwan is a case in point). Does rising belligerence against a key trading partner/US geopolitical rival sound familiar?
Meanwhile Russia can't defeat Ukraine but Europe is convinced it has to arm itself and join the proxy war. This aligns with the 2026 National Defense Strategy - feeding proxies into wars against US rivals, what the US euphemistically refers to as "'burden sharing".
> Georgia acceding to NATO was viewed no differently than Ukraine by Russia and Russia clearly stated that this would cause a war
You put a lot of faith in Russian rhetoric. They've made many hollow declarations before and during the war, particularly around territorial integrity and western support. Meanwhile Putin has made all sorts of claims to contradict this casus belli you cling to, e.g. Russia has a historical right to Ukraine. And I won't even start with Medvedev.
> It's strange to me that you think that the US had nothing to do with expanding NATO
I don't recall saying the US had nothing to do with it. But this wasn't the unilateral action by the US that you asserted. And Russia doesn't have veto power over NATO or Ukraine or Georgia. Their warmongering threats don't suddenly mean their neighbors are no longer sovereign. Nor does it mean "it's someone else's fault that they are forced to invade". And yes, the same also applies to Trump's stupid Monroe Doctrine 2.0.
> Japan and Korea vs China sounds absurd doesn't it?
Yes, it does. And brave rhetoric from politicians doesn't somehow equate to the US puppeteering them into a proxy war. You seem to think that US power is awful and should be resisted but when Russia tells its neighbors not to join a defensive alliance, the smaller countries should oblige. And that Japan has to walk on eggshells around China because of its military inferiority.
In any event, your only evidence of an impeding proxy war is Japanese "belligerence" and US influence. Unremarkable.
> And Russia doesn't have veto power over NATO or Ukraine or Georgia. Their warmongering threats don't suddenly mean their neighbors are no longer sovereign.
both can be true at the same time: russia does not have veto power and nobody can stop russia from invading ukraine if russia wants to keep ukraine from nato. unfortunately, being morally right does not protect you from a bully
I also believe some in the administration want chaos. But also consider that Iran is legitimately hard to negotiate with and the negotiators have no experience with highly technical negotiations around nuclear enrichment. Like, I don’t think Trump wants chaos, actually.
> But also consider that Iran is legitimately hard to negotiate with
It is really strange how when you offer to negotiate with the leaders of a country as a pretext to assassinate them... twice... it becomes difficult to negotiate with those who replace them.
the entire war was looking really pointless and trump was left looking like a chump. none of the negotiations would let him walk away with anything looking like a win. a resumption of hostilities at least paints the illusion of progress towards..something
I agree Iran must be hard to negotiate with but they haven’t even tried.
Obama’s nuclear deal took years of work and involved multiple countries. When Vance didn’t get his way in a single meeting he quit?
Also maybe Trump doesn’t want chaos but I doubt he runs the show so much at this point.
I wonder how much what Trump wants matters any more w.r.t. Iran. Trump kicked a hornets' nest. Now it's the hornets' turn to decide when (or if) they'll let him walk away.
I mean, what's Trump going to do? Murder Iranian leaders harder?
I dont know. I guess that's one strategy. Im also not a billionaire and leader of the free world. So I can only assume there is some merit in this particular negotiation style if it landed him where he is.
How is it an appeal to authority? He wasn't appointed to his position in life through bloodline or familial connections. He made insane wealth through business dealings, much of it through negotiations with sharks. Then he convinced half of the country to vote for him with no political experience against a dynasty.
Sure it's not my style and I don't quite understand how its effective, but to dismiss it outright as ineffective is naive.
It's the negotiation equivalent of rent-seeking, or parasitism. It requires deep relationships to have already been built, and it consumes those relationships in exchange for modest short term gain.
> He wasn't appointed to his position in life through bloodline or familial connections. He made insane wealth through business dealings, much of it through negotiations with sharks.
Uhm, no.
> Donald actually received $413 million from Fred over the years [1], [2]:
And as to whether he is any good at investing, he is literally worse than average S&P500 [3].
Two people see an opportunity to make money. One of them recognizes the venture would harm the people involved and decides not to.
The other either does not see the harm (so not a genius) or simply doesn't care (sociopath?). That person does the thing and makes the money.
That person is either some level of naive, some level of evil, but certainly not an evil genius.
It seemed like it was the past, but it might become so again.
Europe will never trust the US for defence again, which means it has to build up all defence capabilities internally.
This will take many many years, but it seems almost inevitable now that it will happen.
When enough time has passed with Europe self sufficient in defence, there might arise cases where US and Europe has a conflict of interest that results in an armed conflict. Perhaps at first via proxy states depending on the type of conflict.
I have used an iPhone for 8 years and a macbook for 2 years.
Every year the experience gets worse, like on schedule.
This theory might explain what is happening!
Why haven’t you fixed healthcare or all the potholes in your town?
reply