I don’t see the point of being on a public debate platform that consists mainly of likeminded liberal centrists.
12.10.2025 18:45
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
I don’t see the point of being on a public debate platform that consists mainly of likeminded liberal centrists.
I note that when America says it ”stands by” a partner, it sends its airforce against an enemy that pose no actual threat to itself.
When EU ”stands by” Ukraine against Russia (which poses a direct threat to itself), it struggles to impose sanctions.
Whatever it takes - except troops or grains
So they understand political economy - like all good Marxists do.
History is only useful to understand the laws of physics that constrain the policy space of nations, powers, leaders. History doesn’t predict outcomes. 1930s analogies are v unhelpful: some authoritarians came to power via elections, yes but no one will end his days in a bunker by his own hand.
I begin to wonder whether it is Trump presidency that is paralysing us, or if it is our unsound obsession with it. Perhaps @vonderleyen is the one that is doing it right: by pretending Trump simply doesn’t exist.
The difference between US and EU on Ukraine is how the former assumes Ukraine cannot win the war, thereby executing plan B. Whereas for latter, war outcome is actually secondary. The primary interest is about who controls what’s left of Ukraine, not how much is left of it.
Well that just changed.
Or maybe HS finally made it to me. Very grateful for the chat with JP and some great shots.
www.hs.fi/talous/art-2... made it to Helsingin sanomat, @leemakiyama.bsky.social !
“We stand by Ukraine”
Except with troops or grains
“We stand by Ukraine”
Except with troops or grains
Please get yourselves together. Americans have always negotiated away territorial integrity of others over their heads since Korea in 1952: Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan. It’s not even a first in Europe - just a first for people with pale skin and blue eyes.
Ahead of the NATO ministerial, here's my thoughts on the submarine cable disruptions and trusted connectivity. Both NATO and EU competencies needed to secure the most important chokepoints in the western hemisphere.
ecipe.org/blog/infrast...
Well played by China on tariff retaliation. Either way the US plays, China now wins.
If you are going to fix the current account (for whatever reason), including using tariffs, there's probably no better time for a trade war than now.
Journalists are not experts on a subject. Journalism is reporting on a subject, which is a valued craft its own right. But too many (esp among journalists themselves) confuse reporting with actual mastery of a subject. Opining by journalists serve is vox populi, but there’s no authority beyond that.
I agree he is a very dangerous man – but thinking that the country won't survive him doesn't put much faith in the division of power. We might call him stupid, vindictive, fixated on payback – but that reflects a majority of America and its place in the world.
Yes, US businesses and consumers pay the tariff. But that’s entirely beside the point for those who argue for tariffs. Nor is this a fairness discussion or about current account. There is a bigger question about rebalancing the U.S. economy that trade nerds of all colors are missing.
Not in my bingo card for 2025 but: the US joining BRICS would make a lot of sense. It's a club of countries who do not trust each other and share no common interests except for weakening G7.
The US, India, and Europe do software and system integration. Taiwan, Japan, Korea does hardware design. However, China has mastered both. And the next game-changer that integrates the two (like the Apple Mac or iPhone) could very well be a Chinese innovation.
#DeepSeekR1 used smaller training models and cheaper hardware infrastructure – which is largely thanks to US export controls. Ironically, the US made DeepSeek better adapted for the commercial reality of GenAI monetisation". Me in
@VerdictUK www.verdict.co.uk/did-chinas-d...
Most of which are aimed at Europe (and its trade) rather than China. Plus review US membership in the WTO GPA (which China is not part of).
Negotiating with China based on trade offs might be easier than dealing with Mexico or Europe based on common interest or the illusion of shared values.
Well bluesky is a genuinely good product when I want to immerse myself with likeminded liberal academics and have no interest in views from Asia. If X is a swamp, then Bluesky is the danger of little knowledge embodied.
This is not what the panel report says. Fascinating how so many ‘experts’ fail to understand basic legal texts and/or just prints whatever EU officials tells them.
This is probably true - and not that hard to prove. So the question is why no evidence was attached unless the poster was just trying to push his GitHub account.
The idea of the US imposing sanctions on Russia to force it to the negotiation table is just utterly absurd – unless it's a part of a coordinated choreography to appear tough on both sides.
This is not what the panel report says. Fascinating how so many ‘experts’ fail to understand basic legal texts and/or just prints whatever EU officials tells them.
Well bluesky is a genuinely good product when I want to immerse myself with likeminded liberal academics and have no interest in views from Asia. If X is a swamp, then Bluesky is the danger of little knowledge embodied.
Remember when Lighthizer/Hogan agreed transatlantic trade issues had to be resolved at HoG level, and Commission president refused because it was, rightly, beneath her? I bet Trump remembers.
Most of which are aimed at Europe (and its trade) rather than China. Plus review US membership in the WTO GPA (which China is not part of).
Negotiating with China based on trade offs might be easier than dealing with Mexico or Europe based on common interest or the illusion of shared values.