My SWAG is that there is no strategy, other than pumping Trump’s ego. "Doing deals" is of interest, only to the extent they pump Trump’s ego.
Zelenskii or his replacement will put on a suit and grovel appropriately. The europeans will snivel, beg, abase themselves most shamelessly. A statue of Trump may or may not be promsed.
Ukraine will get more weapons and money. The Sunk Cost Fallacy will continue to be abused, until WWIII. Even as he pushes The Button, Trump cultists will insist that this is all part of a Master Plan
His opponents will insist that he did so only on Putin’s orders and besides HRC/Biden/Harris would have pushed it sooner and better.
Vance is the wild card in all this. He appears to be Trump’s ear, knows how to flatter his boss, and I suspect that he set the little twerp up.
They’re going to attempt Kautsky’s ultra-imperialism not on the basis of large bureaucratically rationalized monopoly capitals but on a narrow network of private oligarchs with realestate/crypto/small business sigma grindset. Peace in our time lmao
1. You assign too much agency to Trump and his entourage. Other actors – domestic and foreign – will hinder at least a part of his destructive foreign policy moves. And on many issues, he wields less power to begin with.
2. I see no coherent strategy in the Trump administration’s actions. Destruction alone doesn’t make the cut. So far, their approach has largely been reactive, reckless and riddled with contradictions – hallmarks of chaos, not strategy.
3. Even if you consider destruction a strategy, you are silent on the risks. Tearing down bureaucratic structures can unleash massive unintended consequences.
4. Your analysis leans too hard on dichotomies. The past wasn’t as stable, nor the present as chaotic as you suggest – unless, of course, one ignores non-US perspectives. I don’t. You seem to.
5. You also downplay the ego wars within the administration. Managing such a bull herd takes skill, while Trump can’t even manage himself. How long can this stampede last?
6. And where is ethics in all of this? You seem to have flushed it down the toilet. Is there a trace of resentment in your piece? Should I believe that the "blob’s" inertia is the sole reason for your vitriol? Also, what was that episode with Setser on X?
In any case, I was reading you for insight, not intrigue. Could we get back to that?
1. Agree. See the last paragraph where I promise to write about 'the general equilibrium'.
2. There is a strategy, or a diagnosis of what has gone wrong — it may not be correct, but it exists. But there's also the threading of needles, and the constant head fakes.
3. I think it is very risky. See 1 above.
4. One can't do everything in a single essay. I agree other actors' responses will be decisive.
5. Dunno. We'll see. What is clear is that the Revolution is for real.
6. Ethics come at the end, once the positive, 'what is' questions have been answered. In general, not just in this case. What about the episode with Setser? I believe his entire obsession with net balances is totally and fundamentally misguided. It is a shame that he's been given so much square footage, and yet no one has even asked him to demonstrate in any form whatsoever, that net balances matter AT ALL. It's bullshit. Find me evidence that they move any needle and I will be less caustic to Setser.
7. I think you missed the agenda of the essay. It was to frame our present conjuncture: what explained the stability of the world where nothing ever happened? and how did we arrive in a world where things are most definitely afoot?
Ukraine attempted to escape the Russian sphere of influence and enter the American. Russia attacked them for it, if America abandons Ukraine to Russia, what lesson will Americas Asian allies draw? I’m talking here about the Philippines, Taiwan, even Vietnam, India, Australia. Maybe they’ll decide better to cut a deal now with China, be rely on America and be sold out if the shooting starts.
Trumps approach is utterly non strategic, it’s unbelievable people claim this will help the US pivot to Asia
Yet to start his 3rd month after inauguration, I think Trump still in the process of consolidating power. One reason he's doing things that will seem sensible to most of the military. Few actually wants to go sit in the trenches while Zelensky's entourage pockets $billions that US/EU/NATO send their way.
I think he does take his political sponsors very seriously. Look at the promises he actually kept in his first administration. Tax cuts for big biz. Judges and Supreme Court for Heritage Foundation. Killed Iran deal for Netanyahu. Continuation of pork for MIC. This time around, I'd expect something parallel -- except Trump admin will correct (and perhaps overcorrect) their 2016-2017 mistake in failing to demonstratively establish their power over the executive branch.
Re Ukraine, they'll just sub out Zelensky for another talking head - so I don't think any definitive shift is locked in as a result. Arguably Trump admin would de-prioritize Ukraine just to make room for action elsewhere, but that's about it. In spite of occasional truth-bombs, I very much doubt they're giving up on US exceptionalism. Maybe will spend more time beating up on EU, because they're such a juicy target.
My guess is that even if they do have a plan, it's not a very good one. Setting all value judgements aside, if the US has such a self-sufficient economy and fortress-like geography that it doesn't need to bother with Europe, then why does it need to bother with China? Why not just throw up a tariff wall to prevent economic competition, replicate or secure access to anything in the Asia-Pacific region that it needs (like they're doing with TSMC), do the same with EMEA and go full-bore isolationist, heedless of the consequences for the rest of the world. The Elect don't need to worry themselves about Armageddon back on Earth.
Indeed. But there's no plan to isolate the US from Europe. Some of Trump's supporters think it but it isn't true. The plan is to dominate the old continent. Take control in even more overt way than is the case today. The only twist is that Euro leaders were happy to supplicate for Blinken/Biden, but hesitate at the moment to do the same for Trump. They'll find there's ultimately not much difference in policy, I think.
There are bosses you like and bosses you hate. If you have to be bossed (and economically, Europe doesn't have much option), then better that it's the former.
"....and the ossified discourse of the parasitic ‘belligerati’ [Tariq Ali] that has grown up around milking the cow of American power."
At first, I thought this was some kind of petty ad hominem attack on a fellow South Asian Muslim. But the gratuitousness of the insult -- and the jarring note it strikes in an otherwise sober piece of writing-- makes me suspect that the bad feelings have their source in something else.
Well written and interesting. The neon-elephant in the room about bernanke's claims regarding stagflation and the fed is that it can be demonstrated thoroughly that there were ongoing oil/gas and metals shortages then (yes, I know much of the metals shortages was a by product of oil/gas shortages, but far from all of it was) and the bad inflation began after that began and ended after it ended in ways that on the face of sure do look like it was causal. Also, we underwent intensive economic centralization at home during that period, and then capital "G" Globalization brought that same force to the rest of the world (you partly touch on this when you write "the politicians’ surrender of authority over the management of the macroeconomy to technocrats"), and we've been suppressing growth and opportunity, a planetary division of labor was created, one that has been terribly stultifying to human civilization and had deeply suppressed the development of most of the "developing" world. Of course all this suppressed inflation, it inhibited activity outside of a planetary divisions of resources with semi-economic planning, but this isnt the stability of progress: its the stability of cold empire. Darkly ironically, we'd likely have far more real trade today if we never did capital "G" Globalization and its trade deals
Bismarck first beat Austria, then forged an alliance with it. Thus he broke the Franco-Austrian alliance preventing Prussian hegemony in Central Europe. I do not think that handing Holstein to Austria would have been the better course of action.
Colby wants to pivot to Asia and hold the line at the present defense perimeter. Trump & co agree with the pivot but they might be open to a spheres of influence deal with China that allows them to withdraw the defense perimeter to a more sustainably defendable position.
Elbridge Colby, who was advocating an uncompromising "pivot to contain China" in US foreign policy. Ofc this won't happen as written by EC, because Netanyahu's political circle is a top-3 constituent among Trump's political sponsors. US more likely to simply substitute a conflict with Yemen or Iran. Whether Ukraine is settled to make way for this, or just put on the back burner as I think is more likely, would prob not make a big difference to the Trump Admin.
Zelensky temper tantrum? Bullshit. Unsubscribed.
lol... was it a comedy routine then?
My SWAG is that there is no strategy, other than pumping Trump’s ego. "Doing deals" is of interest, only to the extent they pump Trump’s ego.
Zelenskii or his replacement will put on a suit and grovel appropriately. The europeans will snivel, beg, abase themselves most shamelessly. A statue of Trump may or may not be promsed.
Ukraine will get more weapons and money. The Sunk Cost Fallacy will continue to be abused, until WWIII. Even as he pushes The Button, Trump cultists will insist that this is all part of a Master Plan
His opponents will insist that he did so only on Putin’s orders and besides HRC/Biden/Harris would have pushed it sooner and better.
Vance is the wild card in all this. He appears to be Trump’s ear, knows how to flatter his boss, and I suspect that he set the little twerp up.
They’re going to attempt Kautsky’s ultra-imperialism not on the basis of large bureaucratically rationalized monopoly capitals but on a narrow network of private oligarchs with realestate/crypto/small business sigma grindset. Peace in our time lmao
A few thoughts.
1. You assign too much agency to Trump and his entourage. Other actors – domestic and foreign – will hinder at least a part of his destructive foreign policy moves. And on many issues, he wields less power to begin with.
2. I see no coherent strategy in the Trump administration’s actions. Destruction alone doesn’t make the cut. So far, their approach has largely been reactive, reckless and riddled with contradictions – hallmarks of chaos, not strategy.
3. Even if you consider destruction a strategy, you are silent on the risks. Tearing down bureaucratic structures can unleash massive unintended consequences.
4. Your analysis leans too hard on dichotomies. The past wasn’t as stable, nor the present as chaotic as you suggest – unless, of course, one ignores non-US perspectives. I don’t. You seem to.
5. You also downplay the ego wars within the administration. Managing such a bull herd takes skill, while Trump can’t even manage himself. How long can this stampede last?
6. And where is ethics in all of this? You seem to have flushed it down the toilet. Is there a trace of resentment in your piece? Should I believe that the "blob’s" inertia is the sole reason for your vitriol? Also, what was that episode with Setser on X?
In any case, I was reading you for insight, not intrigue. Could we get back to that?
1. Agree. See the last paragraph where I promise to write about 'the general equilibrium'.
2. There is a strategy, or a diagnosis of what has gone wrong — it may not be correct, but it exists. But there's also the threading of needles, and the constant head fakes.
3. I think it is very risky. See 1 above.
4. One can't do everything in a single essay. I agree other actors' responses will be decisive.
5. Dunno. We'll see. What is clear is that the Revolution is for real.
6. Ethics come at the end, once the positive, 'what is' questions have been answered. In general, not just in this case. What about the episode with Setser? I believe his entire obsession with net balances is totally and fundamentally misguided. It is a shame that he's been given so much square footage, and yet no one has even asked him to demonstrate in any form whatsoever, that net balances matter AT ALL. It's bullshit. Find me evidence that they move any needle and I will be less caustic to Setser.
7. I think you missed the agenda of the essay. It was to frame our present conjuncture: what explained the stability of the world where nothing ever happened? and how did we arrive in a world where things are most definitely afoot?
Ukraine attempted to escape the Russian sphere of influence and enter the American. Russia attacked them for it, if America abandons Ukraine to Russia, what lesson will Americas Asian allies draw? I’m talking here about the Philippines, Taiwan, even Vietnam, India, Australia. Maybe they’ll decide better to cut a deal now with China, be rely on America and be sold out if the shooting starts.
Trumps approach is utterly non strategic, it’s unbelievable people claim this will help the US pivot to Asia
Yet to start his 3rd month after inauguration, I think Trump still in the process of consolidating power. One reason he's doing things that will seem sensible to most of the military. Few actually wants to go sit in the trenches while Zelensky's entourage pockets $billions that US/EU/NATO send their way.
I think he does take his political sponsors very seriously. Look at the promises he actually kept in his first administration. Tax cuts for big biz. Judges and Supreme Court for Heritage Foundation. Killed Iran deal for Netanyahu. Continuation of pork for MIC. This time around, I'd expect something parallel -- except Trump admin will correct (and perhaps overcorrect) their 2016-2017 mistake in failing to demonstratively establish their power over the executive branch.
Re Ukraine, they'll just sub out Zelensky for another talking head - so I don't think any definitive shift is locked in as a result. Arguably Trump admin would de-prioritize Ukraine just to make room for action elsewhere, but that's about it. In spite of occasional truth-bombs, I very much doubt they're giving up on US exceptionalism. Maybe will spend more time beating up on EU, because they're such a juicy target.
My guess is that even if they do have a plan, it's not a very good one. Setting all value judgements aside, if the US has such a self-sufficient economy and fortress-like geography that it doesn't need to bother with Europe, then why does it need to bother with China? Why not just throw up a tariff wall to prevent economic competition, replicate or secure access to anything in the Asia-Pacific region that it needs (like they're doing with TSMC), do the same with EMEA and go full-bore isolationist, heedless of the consequences for the rest of the world. The Elect don't need to worry themselves about Armageddon back on Earth.
Indeed. But there's no plan to isolate the US from Europe. Some of Trump's supporters think it but it isn't true. The plan is to dominate the old continent. Take control in even more overt way than is the case today. The only twist is that Euro leaders were happy to supplicate for Blinken/Biden, but hesitate at the moment to do the same for Trump. They'll find there's ultimately not much difference in policy, I think.
There are bosses you like and bosses you hate. If you have to be bossed (and economically, Europe doesn't have much option), then better that it's the former.
"....and the ossified discourse of the parasitic ‘belligerati’ [Tariq Ali] that has grown up around milking the cow of American power."
At first, I thought this was some kind of petty ad hominem attack on a fellow South Asian Muslim. But the gratuitousness of the insult -- and the jarring note it strikes in an otherwise sober piece of writing-- makes me suspect that the bad feelings have their source in something else.
Haha. No. I found the term belligerati used by Tariq Ali in the penultimate edition of the London Review.
Well written and interesting. The neon-elephant in the room about bernanke's claims regarding stagflation and the fed is that it can be demonstrated thoroughly that there were ongoing oil/gas and metals shortages then (yes, I know much of the metals shortages was a by product of oil/gas shortages, but far from all of it was) and the bad inflation began after that began and ended after it ended in ways that on the face of sure do look like it was causal. Also, we underwent intensive economic centralization at home during that period, and then capital "G" Globalization brought that same force to the rest of the world (you partly touch on this when you write "the politicians’ surrender of authority over the management of the macroeconomy to technocrats"), and we've been suppressing growth and opportunity, a planetary division of labor was created, one that has been terribly stultifying to human civilization and had deeply suppressed the development of most of the "developing" world. Of course all this suppressed inflation, it inhibited activity outside of a planetary divisions of resources with semi-economic planning, but this isnt the stability of progress: its the stability of cold empire. Darkly ironically, we'd likely have far more real trade today if we never did capital "G" Globalization and its trade deals
Bismarck first beat Austria, then forged an alliance with it. Thus he broke the Franco-Austrian alliance preventing Prussian hegemony in Central Europe. I do not think that handing Holstein to Austria would have been the better course of action.
What's the reference: "This suggests to me that Colby has prevailed but only partially." ?
Colby wants to pivot to Asia and hold the line at the present defense perimeter. Trump & co agree with the pivot but they might be open to a spheres of influence deal with China that allows them to withdraw the defense perimeter to a more sustainably defendable position.
Elbridge Colby, who was advocating an uncompromising "pivot to contain China" in US foreign policy. Ofc this won't happen as written by EC, because Netanyahu's political circle is a top-3 constituent among Trump's political sponsors. US more likely to simply substitute a conflict with Yemen or Iran. Whether Ukraine is settled to make way for this, or just put on the back burner as I think is more likely, would prob not make a big difference to the Trump Admin.