Budapest Memorandum. We avoided war for many years by having allies. If our goal is a war then that's probably what we'll get by being disloyal to our allies.
7 months ago | 7
It was very real when Ukraine agreed to nuclear disarm as the world's 3rd largest nuclear power. They were given assurances by our countries. Russia broke that agreement when they invaded the sovereign nation. I thought we were better than that but apparently nor
7 months ago | 8
America had military hegemony and now everyone is rearming. We could have sold old stuff at a premium. Now Leopards and Grippens will take stage. Also, Ukraine uses off the shelf tech while we are still proprietary and and labor intensive. OOPS 🇺🇸upsidedown 🐺
7 months ago | 5
America wants to play that game...? Sure. Just a reminder: the world today isn't the world of decades past.
7 months ago | 5
I agree with most of what you wrote, but saying America has treated its allies like likely lifelong friends is a reach! As an international relations major with a minor in rhetorical studies, I would be very interested in a video covering this topic.
8 months ago
| 10
I agree with this analysis to the extent that this is how the public at large would come to see things. However, from an American perspective, my sense is that US foreign policy was always predicated on power politics under the old notion of spheres of influence/realist attitude, but dressed up as rules based liberal international order because that way we’d be seen as a benevolent force in the world. The difference now is that Trump doesn’t bother with the lipstick anymore because he and his advisors perceive, and I agree somewhat with this perception, that (1) world is indeed shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity and (2) the Jacksonian political base in America (I.e., the group in America who make up the majority of the war fighting population) is no longer willing to support the American empire building. American unipolarity after the end of the Cold War no doubt benefited most of the world, and most Americans. And no doubt we avoided hot wars between major developed countries for over 30 years, which has been a great thing. But those days over. I personally support the end of the facade that was the rules based international order (although it remains to be seen whether successive Republican administration will follow suit), because American belligerence in the world when we are no longer the sole superpower only invites disasters of our own making. But I do have certain apprehensions about the future of conflicts when it finally becomes crystal clear for all the world that American hegemony and the rules based liberal international order is over. My hope is that no super power will be willing to risk a major war with another super power given the demographic problems facing most advanced nations and the economic interdependence (not to mention nukes). But the Russo-Ukraine conflict contradicts the first and the example of the lead up to WWI contradicts the second, sad to say.
7 months ago | 3
I definitely do understand what you’re saying, and agree with a portion of your argument, but we also have to take into account that helping Ukraine does inherently benefit America, because at the end of the day, Russia is not stopping with Ukraine and we all know it , it was the same with the Germans and lebensraum there will never be enough living space for Putin until he has it all.
7 months ago (edited) | 5
It is really a very clever way to get the upper hand in peace negotiations. The message is clear - if Zelensky is not committed to peace, he will have to rely on financial and military support from Europe, where many member nations still are not meeting the financial commitment to Nato. And you don't have to be anti-Ukraine to question exactly where the financial support UA has been going. The moral resentment towards Trump in this matter is nothing but ire and crocodile tears from people who are enjoying massive benefits from the biggest moneylaundering scheme in history.
7 months ago (edited) | 2
I always understand “allies” to mean partner nations that are roughly equal in power to your own, and bring significant benefits to the relationship. Maybe that’s just from me being a history nerd and understanding it from that context Most American presidents since the Cold War have noted European NATO free-riding as a major problem. NATO is de jure an alliance of equals, but in reality, NATO European countries are de facto military protectorates of the U.S. It’s also interesting to note that many Ukraine supporters in the U.S. refer to Ukraine as an ally, when we have no such formal treaty. It seems like the word “ally” in the liberal internationalist school of IR has a evolved a completely different definition compared to the realist school
8 months ago
| 12
There is something missing from this. What you’re not saying speaks volumes. I see right through you.
7 months ago | 4
Generating power through force is easy. Generating power through morality is our current challenge.
7 months ago | 0
I wouldn't call that a debate. That was our president putting the ungrateful dictator in his place. He will be made to confess to all of his crimes. He owes us money. Lots of it
7 months ago | 0
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in]. As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years. I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cop (neolibs), bad cop (neocon). Divide-and-rule.
7 months ago | 0
All former US Presidents understood that monies or weapons given to COMBAT COMMUNISM is not a loan nor was it buying that country’s SOVEREIGNTY. All understood and respected this fact: EU allied countries would be a 1st 2nd and 3rd line of defense against the threat
8 months ago | 1
Color me nonplussed that we're going back to the attitudes around WWI, especially because that is when we lost First Amendment protection of political speech, which lasted a half century until Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
7 months ago | 2
I agree to 90 % , the only thing i point out Is that the big Brother was the bullie in the schoolyard and beat up all other children
8 months ago
| 3
-Wanting to conquer Canada and Greenland -Talking about being elected for a third term -Speaking to allies like clients -Populism -Assassination attempts - His son being compared to Augustus All he needs now is for me to start leaving comments in honor of "Divus Trumpus"
8 months ago (edited)
| 5
Legendary Lore
Friends, yesterday I watched the full press conference/debate between Trump and Zelenskyy, and I wanted to share some thoughts. This is a contentious topic, and by no means am I downplaying the very real horror of war. This isn’t about taking sides—it’s about he historical reality of power.
In recent decades, Western foreign policy has been dressed up in the language of democracy and moral responsibility, but this meeting finally shattered that illusion. Trump made it clear that America’s support is a transaction. This is old-school power politics (AKA Political Realism) and basically a return to how the world has worked throughout history.
Trump didn’t talk to Zelenskyy like a partner; he talked to him like an emperor addressing a client king of Rome. The message is clear: be useful and grateful or be ignored. Throughout history, stronger powers very rarely handed out support for free—they expected loyalty and results. If a client ruler wasn’t sufficiently useful, he would be replaced. Trump’s attitude toward Ukraine isn’t that different.
Under previous administrations, supporting Ukraine was framed as a duty until Trump flipped that claim: America comes first. If backing Ukraine helps the U.S., great! If it risks dragging America into a bigger war or simply costs too much, then why keep doing it? This is the unfiltered political realism that defined empires.
And it’s not just about Ukraine—Europe is being forced into the same reality check. For years, we have relied on American security guarantees. Now, with the U.S. questioning its "commitments," Europe is waking up to the fact that we may have to take more responsibility for our own security. Just like Ukraine, European nations are realizing that power politics is far from dead—it was just on pause while big brother took care of the schoolyard bullies.
During recent decades, America treated allies like lifelong friends. Trump treats them like business partners. It feels like a major shift, but it’s really a return to historical diplomacy. Whether that’s good or bad depends on your perspective, but one thing’s clear: Trump just reminded the world that politics is, and always has been, about power, not morals.
Welcome back to hardball diplomacy...
BTW I've been thinking of making a video on how political realism has always shaped history—from ancient empires to today. If you’d watch that, let me know!
8 months ago | [YT] | 212