We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Welcome to TrumpGPT A story from this morning drives home that Donald Trump’s foreign policy (perhaps ‘policy’ is too optimistic a word) has descended into farce:
Russia attacks Ukrainian power plant hours after Trump ‘ceasefire’
Moscow strikes with drones and glide bombs despite US president’s surprise claim of an energy truce
Is there any evidence either Ukraine or Russia actually agreed to any cessation of strikes against energy targets?
When I started using ChatGPT, I encountered answers that were phrased with great certainty but were in fact ‘hallucinations’ with no basis in reality whatsoever. And by that I mean the AI invented an ice-cream parlour, with a technical description of how its ice-cream was made and a street address… which proved to have never existed and address was a parking lot in Prague.
Welcome to TrumpGPT
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
President Trump loves talks and deals – he has done all his life and is quite open about it.
However, in politics talks and deals do not work – in politics (which is war by another name – it is based on force, the control of violence – the power of arrest and so on), you destroy your enemies, or they destroy you.
Mr Putin is not going to keep any deal he makes, whatever nice things he says on the telephone – “but is in his interests to keep the deal” – Mr Putin does not care about that, he is not a businessman. Dr Johnson said that a man is seldom so innocently engaged as when he is after money – as other motives tend to make men do far worse things than they would do just for money, and Mr Putin is NOT really after money any more – he is after power and a legacy – a legacy of conquest, to put him in the history books with previous rulers. He wants to be remembered for conquest, like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great – Mr Putin is getting on in years and is not in good health (I know the feeling) – he wants to achieve real conquests before he dies (when one knows that natural death is fairly near, and one feels ill all the time, death “loses its sting” – one no longer fears death).
This is even more true of the Islamic Republic of Iran – many times since February this year, President Trump had the chance to destroy the IRI (and, thus, go into the midterm elections with VICTORY) – but, each time, he opted for talks-and-deals (which is his passion), not understanding that the IRI people, the Revolutionary Guard and so on, will not keep any agreement they make – and do-not-care if they, and their families, are killed – as they sincerely believe they will go to paradise and have eternal bliss if they die fighting infidels.
All this, both Mr Putin and the Islamic Republic of Iran, may be difficult for a New York Property Developer to understand – but Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State AND National Security Adviser (it is very rare for one person to have both these positions) must also be blamed – as he has guided every step of foriegn policy.
Both President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio love life – so many Americans do. And it gives them a “Star Trek” view of the world – “if we defeat our enemies – they will make peace, in the interests of themselves and their children”.
They would be shocked to learn how many people do NOT love life – indeed go to bed each night hoping they do not wake up in the morning.
Donald Trump, like his on-off friend Elon Musk, is often a jerk. Trump’s critics have a point when they compare him to a toddler. But their constant lies about him (e.g. the Russian collusion and “Fine people on both sides” hoaxes) have given him a propaganda advantage. They’ve cried wolf too often. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to do any more than glance at a headline saying Trump has done some stupid or spiteful thing, so they assume it’s just another lie even when it is true.
In the conflict in IndoChina when the United States Air Force was allowed to do some (some – not a fraction of what it could have done) damage to North Vietnam – say with the Linebacker or Linebacker II operations, the Marxists always knew they could stop the damage (and give themselves time to recover) by agreeing to “talks” and making “deals” – ending in the farcical “Paris Peace Accords” where the Marxists made all sorts of promisies (which they did not intend to keep).
It is unfortunate that after all these years, Americans (not just President Trump – most, although not all, Westerers – British, Americans and so on) have still learned nothing – nothing at all.
By the way the “right wing” Conrad Black holds the two greatest “achievements” of President Nixon were the delusional Paris Peace Accords AND the “opening to China” – i.e. the crawling to Mao, the largest scale mass murderer in human history.
With “right wingers” like Conrad Black, or Richard Nixon, who needs the official left.
As for Israel – after three years (three years) Hamas and the other Islamic groups are still not wiped out.
And the Israelis are still in the stage of “we must give warning before we attack a specific place – otherwise we will be accused of targeting civilians”.
You are allowing the enemy to escape – again and again (for three years), and you will be accused of “targeting civilians” – indeed of “genocide”, whatever you do – you puppets of the Supreme Court, you utter fools.
So true. TDS is an actual thing, but it really does mean when he actually spouts nonsense, many people will just assume anyone pointing that out is just giving voice to their TDS… even when Trump really is saying something disconnected from reality.
Yaaawn.
More pearl=clutching from the tut-tutters. If you folks were Israeli, you’d be going on about how uncouth that Netanyahu is – not one of us.
From Greenland to Hormuz, the feckless Faculty Lounge lizards have rolled their eyes – only to find out that Trump did, indeed, have a plan. He just didn’t bother to share it with the Intellectual Eunuch class, or curry their favor.
He also has the ability to revise and improvise, instead of repeating dusty nostrums and obeying received truisms that never were true – or worse, were introduced and spread by Marxist defeatists.
I am one of those Americans who voted for something different from ivory-tower punditry. I like what I see.
He and his very intelligent team had 4 years to scope things out – and have done very well.
They have revitalized the US Army, done their best to shame Europe into pulling herself together.
They have used lawfare and resolution to roll back DEI, USAID, and storm other leftie domestic power bases.
Played a very good game of rope-a-dope with both the Islamists and the Chinese.
Are locked loaded and engaged in the runup to the US midterms like they really matter – like they understand what’s at stake and want to win, unlike the RINOs joining in to the tut-tutting.
I remind you that dogs who can’t run should remain on the porch – and not expect their barkings to have much impact.
Go back to the Faculty Lounge and mix another martini.
The problem is that Trump is flailing because of the mid terms, looking for any edge. It is all caused by his foolish war in Iran that has done SO much harm and driven gas prices through the roof and consequently the price of everything else through the roof. So he is trying anything to make a positive step. But of course Zelensky and Putin and the Mullah’s in Iran have access to the internet and know all about his domestic troubles, so have so much leverage that Trump, and consequently America, and consequently the rest of the free world, is at their mercy.
And given the alternative in the American elections, almost certainly the most insane, extreme crazy slate of candidates the left has ever put up, the consequences of this terrible war, which is to say the election of these crazy people, is possibly the worst political decision in fifty years. Especially so at this turning point in history when we desperately need serious people in charge.
I continue to be utterly flabbergasted that they apparently did not have a serious plan to protect Hormuz. How is that even possible? How could they be so utterly dominant in the realm of the tactical and so utterly feckless in the realm of strategy and realpolitik?
I’m no TDS moron, I voted enthusiastically for him three times. How can it possibly have gone so wrong?
The real trouble is that if Putin did interfere with the Brexit result, then Britain should still be in Europe. will you rejoin now, or be forced to rejoin later?
“Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.”
Unless you’re commenting in a blog post.
I’m unsure what the opposite disorder to Trump Derangement Syndrome is called but you seem to have it. Which part of Trump’s Middle East and naval strategy is it you find masterful? Which aspect of being constantly manipulated by Russia appeals? And I know for a fact in the two-and-a-half European naval circles that matter, which is my background, there are working parties quietly talking to each other making contingency planning that would have been literally unthinkable a few years ago. There will be no going back from that, not that I expect you will see why you should care.
Judging by the defensive postures, lack thereof, at Prince Sultan and elsewhere, all well within the published ranges of sundry Iranian theatre munitions, the USAF does not seem to have been very revitalised.
I’m pretty sure no one on this site has a problem with Trump’s domestic policies, because either they seem very sensible or they don’t actually give a damn about US domestic policies.
@BenDavid
Go back to the Faculty Lounge and mix another martini.
It is easy to snip and mock people who demand that the promises meet the deliveries. If you think the situation, especially with respect to the middle east, is anything other than disastrous then it is you who is suffering a strange form of reverse TDS. And the consequences of this failure will be apparent a month from now when all those martini sipping lounge lizards in faculties across the country, across the world, celebrate when the American economy is turned over to some of the most extreme socialists, radical Muslims and a few scattered communists. People who make AOC and Mandami look like moderates. People who think that, for example, your beloved Israel is a rogue state, and believe in a one state solution — just not the state that you’d probably prefer.
I’m no Trump hater, I voted enthusiastically for him three times, and have been a passionate defender of his policies here and other places. But, simply spoken, Trump has NOT done what he promised when I voted for him.
And again, this upcoming election is not one that can be recovered from, because the American and Western economies are an utter disaster due to fifty years of over spending, over regulation and over taxation. And by a miracle of God a white horse is riding in to save us. Yet these same people who are about to be given power due to these “plans” of Trump that you think are the result of his 4D chess, think that anything white, including white horses, deserve to be destroyed. And so they will annihilate or at the very least hamstring the last great hope of western civilization.
However, I very much hope I am wrong.
Those would be the small boats going from France to England?
“Is there any evidence either Ukraine or Russia actually agreed to any cessation of strikes against energy targets?“
Not only is there no evidence that either side agreed to the ceasefire before it was announced, there’s no evidence that either side even knew about it. In fact, both the Kremlin and Zelensky have publicly asserted the contrary — that they were not even consulted beforehand.
“I’m unsure what the opposite disorder to Trump Derangement Syndrome is called but you seem to have it.“
There are two types of TDS. Type I TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, is widespread on the left. Type II TDS, Trump Deification Syndrome, is not as widespread but has similar effects on the right that Type I does on the left: an ever-increasing divergence from reality. Cures for either type remain elusive.
Trump does what he usually does in the end: he lets people down who projected their hopes and dreams onto him. But then that applies to quite a few holders of high office. Obama was a snake with a silver tongue.
One very clear outcome of all this is that Europe must take full responsibility for its own defence. Even if there’s a very different regime in Washington in a few year’s time.
In re: Britain rejoining Europe or being forced to do so.
With all due respect, it is far more likely that they will be joining the Ummah.
Subota Bahadur
@Johnathan Pearce
Trump does what he usually does in the end: he lets people down who projected their hopes and dreams onto him.
Trump was mostly very good in his first term right up until Covid hit. He was also excellent in his second term until around the time of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Though I’m not saying that these two events have a causal relationship, I am also not saying that they don’t have at least somewhat of a causal relationship. I said it at the time, most people drastically underestimate how important that assassination was, and how much of an influence for a pure MAGA ideal that Kirk brought. I pretty sure he would have deflected us from this insane middle eastern war.
The analogy to LLM hallucinations fails for the obvious reason that LLMs literally have no concept of truth. When ChatGPT recommends an ice cream parlour, it is just relying on word associations w/o regard to the correspondence of sentences to reality.
Needless to say, this is not the case for Trump.
In my opinion there are at least 2 reasons for Trump’s “hallucinations”.
One is simply to keep “the left” in a constant state of outrage. I have seen this done by Berlusconi as well.
The other is to force the establishment to admit to truths that they’d rather keep hidden. The obvious example is Martha Raddatz admitting that venezuelan gangs control some apartment buildings in Aurora, CO (in her interview with JD Vance).
But i am going off the foreign policy topic.
Mark Almond (a good man – I am not attacking him personally) in his article attacking President Trump (today in the Daily Mail newspaper) unintentionally showed that he has the same (deeply mistaken) attitude as President Trump himself.
Mark Almond wrote that China or India (or someone else) would have to get an “agreement” between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis – in short Mark Almond, even after all these years, still does not understand than an “agreement” with such people is utterly pointless – that, in this case, the Houthis must-all-be-killed. Indeed the Telegraph newspaper was complaining a few days ago that some Houthis were run over by an armoured car – “they were trying to surrender” the newspaper declared, clearly shocked by how the real world works. The same attitude leads to “food aid” being delivered to the enemy (whether in Yeman, Gaza or elsewhere) – feeding one’s enemies may be very nice, but it is not a way to win (and you will NOT get any credit for feeding your enemies – they will still accuse you of starving them, and the media will carry their lies – even as your enemies gorge themselves on the food you have given them).
Unintentionally they, the critics of President Trump, have the same attitude as him – everything is a lead up to “talks” and “agreements” – and one must follow various rules, such as not killing enemies who might well detonate suicide explosives if one accepted their “surrender”.
This is why the West is losing, overseas and at home (yes – at home as well) – and, unless it changes its attitude, will be exterminated.
As for Vietnam – read, for example, “Stategy for Defeat” by Admiral Sharp.
At any time the United States could, without using any nuclear weapons (not one), have crippled North Vietnam – but the Air Force was forbidden to do so. “It is really difficult to destroy pumping stations” – perhaps so, but it is not difficult to destroy dams (ditto power stations and ports) – “but the media would have condemned us for civilian casualties” – the media will blame you for mass civilian casualties whether-you-inflict-them-or-not, in World War II civilian casualties did not bother you – but then VICTORY was your objective.
Victory was forbidden in Indo-China – as the objective was talks-and-deals. And MILLIONS of civilians lost their lives as the result of defeat – in war there is no substitute for victory, and victory must be achieved by all-means-necessary.
President Trump has followed the same policy with the Islamic Republic of Iran – enemy power stations and water supplies remain intact, and even the bombing he does allow is stopped every time someone in the Islamic Republic says they want to talk – which gives the enemy time to rebuild their military forces.
If (if) your objectiver is talks-and-deals, a “political settlement”, an “agreement” – what you will get is DEFEAT.
President Trump could have destroyed the Islamic Republic of Iran regime in a couple of weeks – but he, and Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio choose the path of “limited war” in order to “bring the enemy to the table” to get an “agreement” – Vice President Vance is also very much an “agreements” person.
According to Vice President Vance all wars end with talks and agreements – give and take on both sides.
Which shows that he knows nothing-at-all about history.
The defeat in the Midterm Elections, which will lead to utter horror in the United States (many people, including some on this site, still do not grasp just how bad things will get – with Congress in the hands of monsters) is the direct result NOT of the decision to embark on a military campaign against a long standing enemy (who would USE nuclear weapons if they can develop them) – the defeat in the Midterm Elections is the result of not having victory as the objective of the campaign. Victory that could (yes it could) have been achieved in a few weeks.
If your objective is talks-and-deals what you will get is DEFEAT.
Paul:
I tend to agree with you on this.
President Johnson spent the period between 1965 and 1969 convinced he could secure a “deal” with Ho Chi Minh, as if he was a midwestern senator who needed a new bridge. The Americans did not even know that Ho Chi Minh was no longer in control in North Vietnam, he was merely a figurehead, having been usurped by Le Duan.
The North Vietnamese position was simple: they wanted South Vietnam. And they got it.
Johnson thought that various pauses to his bombing strategy would bring the North to the table. They came, but they never deviated from their war aim.
Le Duan got it badly wrong with the Tet offensive in 1968. He got it wrong again with the Easter offensive in 1972. It did not matter. The war aim was the war aim.
As you say, when the USAF was finally allowed to use B52s over North Vietnam in 1972, the North agreed to the Paris peace accords the next year. The USA duly left South Vietnam in 1973. The North invaded in 1975 and finally conquered the South.
I do not know what President Nixon thought of the Paris accords. He had his own problems by 1973. But Kissinger seems to have had a cynical view of them. He just wanted the USA out of South Vietnam “with honour” and then to wash his hands of them. Which he did. This showed what America thought of its allies, a lesson the Shah of Iran learned in 1979, the consequences of which we still struggle with.
Where to begin? Old Jack Tar asks:
Which part of Trump’s Middle East and naval strategy is it you find masterful?
————————————–
It’s the starting position – the hard truth that “lasting peace” is not possible until Muslims reform their own religion.
(Reminder to newcomers: I’m an American expat living in Israel…)
Trump has chosen this strategy because of another, even more important promise to his base – “No more boots on the ground, no more foreign entanglements”.
His team has performed beautifully within those constraints… people on this list seem to forget how influential Iran was, how loudly its petrodollars spoke… now they are isolated and their people are starving…. Trump has periodically taken Iran’s internal temperature, periodically giving Pahlevi a photo op. This is conquest by remote control, and it’s working beautifully.
We Israelis are now cleaning out Hamas from Gaza, and Hezbollah from Syria – both isolated and starved of funds by the Trump administration’s policies.
Not on your schedule? Not “conventional wisdom”? Doesn’t look like WWII, Korea, or Vietnam? Get the smelling salts!
And the Trump team is great at accomplishing several things at once… Bessent’s economic embargo of Iran also works against China, and undercuts the influence of European “Old Hands” while driving home the folly of European energy policy.
It only looks random – it’s a combination of strategic flexibility and the ironclad rule of the Trump II administration: never let the Left lead the news cycle. Greenland, a petty spat, Bessent announcing rebates, back to Greenland… it’s part of the strategy, the major insight of the lawfare waged against Trump I.
And it’s working…
Fraser writes:
Trump has NOT done what he promised when I voted for him.
—————-
Speaking for myself – I am very pleased to have a president who understands that there is no “solution” to the Mideast, or to the Russia-Ukraine conflict…. there are only interests, deals, realpolitik – and it’s better to come to the table with big economic and military sticks than to beg the brutes of the world for crumbs. I have absolutely no patience with mewling Europeans who divested themselves of military and economic power, cozied up to the world’s thugs – and now complain that Trump is not “solving” their Russian problem.
So my expectations have been met.
The Muslim world and all Socialist powers are destabilized.
Manufacturing, energy dominance, and economic power leached away over decades of dithering is coming back to the US.
Europe has been slapped awake – we still don’t know if it’s too late, but at least we’re no longer footing the bill.
@BenDavid
Speaking for myself – I am very pleased to have a president who understands that there is no “solution” to the Mideast, or to the Russia-Ukraine conflict
TBH it is hard to reply to your comments because they are so unrooted in reality. However, this one really stands out: Trump specifically promised he’d fix the Ukraine situation in, what was it 24 hours? He promised to bring peace to the middle east. He promised no new wars. These are his specific promises during the election, so how you can say this is beyond me. Either what you say here is not true or Trump lied through his teeth to the electorate. Neither is a good look.
I’m sorry this idea that Trump is playing 4D chess just does not at all match up with the reality of what is going on. I don’t doubt the guy is clever and a good deal maker, but he got duped by Putin and Netanyahu. And my God you say he promised “no foreign entanglements”> I mean I wish, but you can’t seriously think the mess in the Middle East doesn’t count as a foreign entanglement.
But far and away the most important thing that you are missing is, as you mention, the realpolitik of the situation, where we are about to drown in a wave of insane left wing politicians, many of whom absolutely loathe the country you live in and think Zionism is racism. You might agree with me that they are insane, but they are about to retain large parts of the levers of power directly because of the policies they you think are so great.
People who have this “Trump can do no wrong” attitude that you seem to have are not doing the cause of Make America Great Again any favors.
The first terrible example of the modern (modern – it is not the traditional American policy) American policy of talks-and-deals was in 1946 – when the Truman Administration ordered (with various threats if they did not comply) the government of the Republic of China (as it then was) to call off the Manchurian Offensive – and have “talks” with the Communists.
The Manuchurian Offensive was succeeding – the Marxist forces were being defeated. By ordering the end of it, and demanding talks-with-the-Communists, the American government condemed tens-of-millions of human beings to death under the Mao regime – and condemned the world to ever growing menace of the Communist Party controlled People’s Republic of China – which may well well snuff out what is left of liberty in the world over the next few years.
Talks-and-deals lead to far MORE civilian deaths than even the most ruthless tactics for winning wars.
And this includes Gaza – yes an all out counter attack after the October 7th 2023 attack (a real attempt at GENOCIDE by the Islamic forces – it was the Islamic forces, not the Jews, who tried to commit genocide) would have led to many civilian deaths – but far fewer civilians would have died in such a ruthless counter attack, than have died over more than three years of messing-about.
This thread is aging out… so:
1. Like many, I take Trump seriously, not literally. Especially given his loose, let’s-make-a-deal style.
2. I certainly don’t think he is any more dishonest than Nobama or any Dem pol – and nowhere near as mendacious.
3. In terms of America’s future, Trump has acted as a wrecking ball on the collective American consciousness, setting in motion a Preference Cascade that is our only hope for rolling back a decades of Left-wing indoctrination. The radicals of the 60s have become the Establishment – and it is the pearl-clutching Radical Chic liberals who are the real threat to America.
It seems Fraser and I see a different world.
@BenDavid
1. Like many, I take Trump seriously, not literally. Especially given his loose, let’s-make-a-deal style.
I look at Trump’s results, and they are not good.
2. I certainly don’t think he is any more dishonest than Nobama or any Dem pol – and nowhere near as mendacious.
Mendacious and dishonest are synonyms, and I agree that Trump is better than Obama, but that’s a pretty low bar.
3. In terms of America’s future, Trump has acted as a wrecking ball on the collective American consciousness,
Has he? He has done some good things, but a lot of the things he did can be easily reversed.
The radicals of the 60s have become the Establishment – and it is the pearl-clutching Radical Chic liberals who are the real threat to America.
Indeed, and President Trump could have really made a difference. If he had simply done what he promised: focused on immigration, the economy, government spending and staying out of foreign entanglements. Instead he pursued reckless and foolish foreign escapades, neglected the economy, abandoned DOGE, for some insane reason doubled the defense budget, and has got himself so unpopular and unsuccessful he has given the levers of power to those same radical chic liberals. He could have been one of the most important Presidents in American history if he had just done what he promised. Instead, he just got sucked into the same old nonsense that old school republicans like the slimy Lindsay Graham had.
And can I just say — it is an outrage that he all but appointed Lindsay Graham’s sister to sit for that senate seat. I mean really. WTF. My feelings about this are probably stronger because I LOATHED Senator Graham so much. But really, I’ve heard of nepotism, but this is second order nepotism.
So yeah, those pearl clutching liberals are a huge threat to America, I have said so half a dozen times here already. The problem is that Trump and his failure to follow through on his promises has set these people on us to wreak their havoc. Congratulations. So much for Make America Great Again.
“He has done some good things, but a lot of the things he did can be easily reversed.“
Since he is willing to make a deal with anyone (Putin, Xi, Kim Jung Un, the IRGC, etc.) except Republican senators, almost none of his policies has been enacted into law. Everything is being run by executive order.
That means it will all go away by the end of January 2029.
We the Voters didn’t elect enough conservative Senators to do Trump much good. Everything he did had to be done in the face of no Congressional support.
The current occupant of the White House is neither as clever as his acolytes think he is nor as stupid as his political enemies believe him to be.
And mkent is correct: 20 January 2029 is now in sight.
Fraser – President Trump has done as much deregulation and tax cutting as he can, and (often overlooked) he has done as much on government spending as Congress will allow him to do – DEI officers and so on have been fired.
Even the military is not immune to examination – many senior positions have been eliminated, in an effort to reverse Parkinson Law – specifically the part about the growth of high officers (in offices) at the expense of front line forces.
And (contrary to your implication) he has concentrated on immigration – illegal immigration has been almost eliminated, and many of the scams in legal immigation (such as the H1B scam) have been reduced. It is hard to see what more President Trump could have done on immigration – ICE is viciusly attacked by the media for what it does already.
As for Islamic Republic of Iran – what you do not undertand (refuse to understand – “refuse” because it has been explained to you many times) is that the conflict is NOT optional.
The IRI is controlled by sincere followers of Islam – i.e. people who think infidels should be dead or enslaved. What part of “Death to America!” do you not understand? Why do you want the IRI to have nuclear weapons – which they would USE, see Marco Rubio (and many others) on this point.
Where President Trump (and Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance) can be faulted is his absurd on-off approach to the conflict – a campaign that could have been won in a couple of weeks has dragged on for almost eight months – due to President Trump’s obsession with “talks and deals”.
Lastly on Ukraine – one can attack President Trump for being too involved in foriegn conflicts AND attack him for not backing Ukraine enough.
It is one or the other – either President Trump has got America too involved, or not involved enough. Not both.
Attacking President Trump for getting American too involved in foriegn conflicts AND attacking President Trump for not backing the war in Ukraine enough, is contradictory.
If America should not be involved in “foriegn entaglements” that, logically, includes Ukraine.
On government spending – all the easy cuts on government spending, such as getting rid of USAID, have been made.
But that has not scratched the surface of the real problem – because the real problem is the Welfare State, which so many people think America does not have (as if it was still 1960 when America did not have a Welfare State).
In terms of government spending the United States, these days, very much does have a Welfare State – “but it has people begging on the streets” – so does Britain, does Britain not have a Welfare State? The point of a Welfare State is NOT to end begging, homelessness and so on – the point of a Welfare State is to spend an ever increasing amoung of money (if lots of people starve to death the Welfare State is still “working” because its function is to spend ever increasing amounts of money – NOT to reduce poverty), and this it does, in Britain, the United States and other Western nations.
There is no chance that Congress would allow President Trump to cut the Welfare State – and he (knowing this) has not even tried.
Senator Cruz, the candidate I wanted to win in 2016, would have tried – and, sadly, I think he would have failed.
Remember the purpose of the Welfare State is NOT to reduce poverty – its purpose is to bankrupt “capitalist” nations, that idea was not invented by Cloward and Piven in the 1960s, it was present in the intentions of the people (monsters) who wrote the “Minority Report” in Britain in the early 1900s.
The main point of the welfare state in the US of A seems to be to buy the votes of illegal immigrants and refugees.
The fact is, Trump supporters who have a loose grasp of reality, are turning against him to the extent that their world view diverges from reality.
Tucker is the most notorious example.
Fraser in this thread is another.
Snorri – yes the American Welfare State is now used for the purpose of buying the votes of such people for the Democratic Party, but these schemes were created at a time when there when the immigrant populations were not important.
The same is true of Britain – indeed it is even more so. The people who created, for example, Unemployment Benefit (paying able bodied people NOT to work appears to be a British invention – Bismarck in Germany introduced no such scheme) were not thinking of immigrants.
One must also think of the cultural (societal) effects of the Welfare State – Sir William Beverage may not have understood how the schemes would lead to cultural (societal) decay – but the Fabians and the Bloomsbury Set (groups that overlapped – ditto the Apostles Club in Cambridge) did understand – and that is what they wanted.
Gladstone argued, correctly, that the government can not morally improve the public – that moral improvement can only come from voluntary means. However, the state can corrupt the population – make them worse.
And the active corruption of the public (the undermining of “capitalist” society) has been the objective of Policy (capital P) for many years – in Britain, the United States and many other nations.
In a small way my own half brother helped along the process – as did a legion (legion of devils) of other academics and other “experts” – with elected politicians being largely deceived puppets.
It is not just financial bankruptcy that the modern state seeks – it is also moral (cultural) bankruptcy.
The breakdown of “social capital” the family and voluntary associations (and so on), is not an unintended consequence of Policy – it is the objective of Policy. Although most of the politicians who have rubber stamped their various things over the decades, were not aware of this.
Sir William Beverage wrote many articles and, indeed books, on unemployment – yet it never seems to have occurred to him that government backed Collective Bargaining (government backed by such Acts of Parliament such as those of 1875 and 1906 – neither anything to do with legalizing unions, which had been legal for many decades, but rather with giving them government granted POWERS – such as the right to obstruct the entrance to a place of business, and to engage in conspiracies to harm enterprises whilst being safe from being sued for damages) was the cause of the persistent mass unemployment – the cause of the unemployment (Institutional Unemployment) was staring him in the face – yet he appeared unable to see it.
J.M. Keynes, privately, does seem to have undertood – i.e. understood that if supply and demand were allowed to freely (freely – i.e. get rid of the Acts of Parliament that had undermined the free interplay of supply and demand) determine prices, including wages (wages are prices) then there would be no mass unemployment – but Keynes HATED the free action of supply and demand, which he called “the Juggernaut” and preferred anything (anything at all – even Nazi Germany, see the introduction to the German edition of the “General Theory…”) to the free market.
With “liberals” such as Keynes and Beverage, totalitarian socialists were hardly necessary.
Indeed Sir William Beverage’s book “Full Employment in a Free Society” (1942) whilst NOT fully socialist, would have been more accurately titled “Full Employment by getting rid of what is left of a Free Society” – his answer to what had been caused by government interventionism, was even MORE government interventionism.
This Ludwig Von Mises predicted back in the early 1920s – that interventionists would respond to every failure of interventionism, by demanding MORE interverntionism (see the last section of Mises’s work “Socialism” – the section titled “Destructionism”).
I think that Herbert Spencer got there first – he pointed out in “Man Versus the State” (1884 – when Beverage was only five years old) that people who demand more government spending and more regulations, respond to every failure by demanding even more government spending and even more regulations.
“Europe must take full responsibility for its own defence”
That was a good joke.
Since 1914 Europe has never been able to defend itself.
Jacob – I do not think it is true that Western European nations have not been able to defend themsleves since 1914, but it is certinly true now in 2026. Western European nations could not even target their weapons without American help, and with the decline of manufacturing in nations such as Britain, the economy could not withstand a real increase in military spending. Western European nations are even more crushed by Welfare State spending than the United States is.
Western European military forces may indeed be adequate to crush internal dissent (over demographic transformation – or other matters), but they are not really adequate for anything else.
As late as 1939 the American military was not impressive compared to some Western European nations.
And France and Britain did NOT lose to Germany in 1940 because they had fewer men or fewer tanks (or even inferior tanks), they had more of both – they lost because of bad tactics.
Going back to 1914 – as some French officers pointed out at-the-time (yes at-the-time – they begged for action, but were ignored) – had the French and British moved faster after the Germans were defeated at the Battle of the Marne – the Germans would have been CUT-OFF and the war would indeed have been “over by Christmas”.
with the decline of manufacturing in nations such as Britain, the economy could not withstand a real increase in military
Not to speak of France.
@Paul Marks
Fraser – President Trump has done as much deregulation and tax cutting as he can, and (often overlooked) he has done as much on government spending as Congress will allow him to do – DEI officers and so on have been fired.
Trump hasn’t been a total failure he did some good things, though they are VASTLY smaller in scope than most people here seem to think. A lot of it is window dressing. As a perfect example, USAID was not shut down as everyone thinks, it was just reorganized into the department of state. As to cutting government spending — he literally DOUBLED The already bloated military budget. Any cuts got lost in the rounding errors of that. And seriously, who is going to take a bet that at the end of the Trump administration that there will be less federal government employees than there were at the start? I sure wouldn’t take that bet.
And (contrary to your implication) he has concentrated on immigration – illegal immigration has been almost eliminated
Trump has done well in immigration, again he did some things right, though I think the strategic and realpolitik of the deportations has been less than optimal, which pains me to say because I think Tom Holman is awesome. But illegal immigration is far from eliminated, there are slightly less illegal immigrants here than at the start of the Trump administration, and the trend is down rather than up, so that is good. But it is CERTAINLY not eliminated.
As for Islamic Republic of Iran – what you do not undertand (refuse to understand – “refuse” because it has been explained to you many times) is that the conflict is NOT optional.
This is such a bullshit thing to say Paul. You have stated your opinion and I have vehemently and carefully disagreed with it, and here you come and lecture me like a schoolboy? There are plainly better ways to handle Iran, in fact Trump was doing a good job with that at the start of his administration, which is to say deep containment with the occasional instantaneous violent action with ongoing CIA work to understand the status and foment regime change. The simple truth is that what happened is that Israel convinced the USA that one strike would be a decapitation and the regime would fall, one violent action which the US completed killing a large amount of leadership. No doubt Netanyahu told him “it’ll be another Venezuela”. But it did not have the systemic effect it was intended and Trump got sucked deeper and deeper in. And the military utterly failed to have a plan to secure Hormuz. That is what actually happened. He had it right before, and, as always happens, a huge military action was a massive military tactical success and a total strategic and political failure. This is the story of nearly every military action since WWII. You’d think they’d learn.
Plus the simple fact is that the consequences of this war almost guarantee turning the government over to a bunch of crazy people. This is certainly not as bad as Iran with a nuclear weapon, but it is in the same ballpark of destructiveness.
If America should not be involved in “foriegn entaglements” that, logically, includes Ukraine.
Correct.
Jacob – correct France is in deep trouble, the highest government spending in the world and yet the media would have us believe that the riots are over “lack of funding for education” – the lie the media are pushing is extreme, it is at the level of “two plus two equals five”.
And the schools in the parts of the cities where the “New French” (i.e. the people in France who are NOT French) tend to live, get more (not less) money than the rural schools do.
As for Iranian campaign – there has no be no reduction in exports of oil from Gulf countries other-than-from-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran-itself – exports were 18 million barrels before the campaign and they are 18.3 million barrels now.
On Ukraine – various people warned President Zelensky that cancelling the elections would, eventually, undermine his position. The irony is that had he held the elections – he would propably have WON back when the elections should have been held.
President Zelensky was also warned (warned – six times) not to attack diesel refinaries – he choose to ignore all six warnings from Washington.
@Snorri Godhi
The fact is, Trump supporters who have a loose grasp of reality, are turning against him to the extent that their world view diverges from reality.
By “loose grip of reality” you mean expecting him to do what he promised to do, many, Many, MANY times? I think it is the people who think that Trump can do no wrong who are losing their grip on reality. I mean seriously, if you can’t recognize the guy you are advocating for has made mistakes it isn’t political support anymore, it is a religion. Only Jesus doesn’t make mistakes. So if you can’t see any of your guy’s mistakes you are simply blind of deliberately not looking.
I believe in the idea of Make America Great Again. That is a policy of reduced government spending, controlling immigration and staying out of foreign wars, bringing back manufacturing to the United States. I just wish the leader of the MAGA movement was more wholly committed to the MAGA ideal.
“President Zelensky was also warned (warned – six times) not to attack diesel refinaries [sic] – he choose to ignore all six warnings from Washington.”
Yes, curse that Zelensky fellow for putting the defence of his country first against a loathsome and duplicitous aggressor state lead by an authoritarian blowhard (I mean the guy in the Kremlin of course, not the guy in the White House).
Fraser – the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years, blaming President Trump for this conflict is absurd (but see later for criicism of the present Administration). As for reducing government spending – as I have already typed, all the cuts to government spending that Congress would allow (such as getting rid of USAID) have been made – to make real cuts in government spending the President would have to launch a coup and get rid of Congress, and the Supreme Court – that is NOT practical policy. It did not work in South Korea – and it would not work in the United States.
JJM – the defense of Ukraine is not practical without American weapons and targeting, if President Zelensky wants to loose both, he can carry on attacking the diesel refinaries – which has nothing to do with “defending Ukraine” and everything to do with helping the Democrats with the MidTerm elections. In 2020 President Zelensky did not release the information that would have shown the corruption of both Hunter and Joseph Biden – he made his choice then. And if he thinks his fawning praise for people such as Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada (his repeated statements that he wanted such policies in Ukraine – Diversity, Inclusion and all that) have been forgotten, then President Zelensky is mistaken – his statements (repeated statements) have not been forgotten. He has even said that he wants Ukraine to be part of (subject to) various Progressive political entities – even the European Union. YES Ukraine should be independent – not under the rule of Moscow or Brussels, and no replacement population from Africa and the Middle East. The “Progressive” social policies that undermined Ukrainian fertility rate, long before Mr Putin’s invasion, need to be reversed – defeated.
If this (a firm policy that Ukraine will be an INDEPENDENT nation – not a subject of the accused International Community, the European Union and so on, and the reversing of “Progressive” social policies – restoring the fertility rate) is NOT done then the Ukrainian people (nation) will cease to exist – even if Mr Putin is killed or dies a natural death.
As for Russia – the people who have pushed the “let’s break up Russia” narrative have played into Mr Putin’s hands – his media has (gleefully) repeated what they have said, thus enabling Mr Putin to falely PRETEND to be a Russian patriot, out to protect Russia from Western plots – no-such-plot-exists – but the Kremlin media have been able to pretend there is such a plot – able to that because of idiot Western academics and others. It is rather difficult to turn the Russian people against Mr Putin – when “friends of Ukraine” go around saying how they want to break up (destroy) Russia.
As for President Trump and Secretary of State and National Security Director Marco Rubio – they are now talking about bombing the main nuclear base of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Talking about it – almost eight months into the present campaign. They have not done it – they are just talking about it.
Far from being the ultra interventionists that Fraser thinks they are – both Donald J. Trump and Marco Rubio (let alone J.D. Vance) are addicted to “talks and deals” – they refuse to destroy-the-IRI which they could have done in a couple of weeks.
Instead we have had eight months of messing-about.
Although that is not as bad as Israel – which has messed about for more than THREE YEARS in Gaza. Hamas and the other Islamic groups, could have been destroyed in a few weeks.
“We can not take harsh action because we will be condemned”.
You will be accused of harsh action, indeed of “genocide”, whatever-you-do – you utter morons.
Yes there are all sorts of plots-and-conspiracies against the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the United States – but if they lose the elections they will, really, have themselves to blame. Not because they are too tough (as Fraser mistakenly implies) – but because they have been weak.
That, for example, Pickaxe Mountain is still there, almost eight months into the present campaign (part of a conflict that has lasted 47 years, since the Islamic attack on the American embassy and the taking of the hostages – and has cost hundreds of American lives in Lebanon and around the world) is astonishing. The whole IRI regime could have been destroyed in a few weeks (not eight months) – but even their main nuclear base has NOT been destroyed.
“But I am talking about destroying it” – thank you President Trump, I am sure that talking about victory, rather than actually winning, will help a lot with the Midterms.
The sarcasm, after almost eight months, is justified.
As for government spending – much of it is on servicing the National Debt, which is around 40 Trillion (Trillion with a T) Dollars.
This is clearly not sustainable – it is insane to borrow money to pay interest on existing debts.
So there is bound, at some point, to be default – either an open default, or the creation of fiat money directly, rather than via the Federal Reserve, that would be no more inflationary than the present practice of creating fiat money from nothing – lending it out, and then borrowing it back again at a higher rate of interest. It would be no more inflationary to just create the fiat money and spend it directly – cutting “Wall Street” (and the other “financial centers”) out of the loop entirely.
On the moral point – that ship has sailed, the United States government defaulted on its gold debt to private citizens in 1933, and it defaulted on its gold obligations to foreign governments in 1971.
The United States government, and all other governments (including the Swiss government – since the 1990s) has no honour left – it is a criminal enterprise.
Before the grammar police arrive – yes I should have typed “they are criminal enterprises” – as it is not just the United States government who is guilty, it is all modern governments who are guilty.
@Paul Marks
Fraser – the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years
Really? According to my research Iran and Iranian based proxies have killed exactly zero people in the United States. So if we have been at war for 47 years, it sure is a funny kind of war. I don’t doubt there is a lot of hostility, though a lot of that is surely for local consumption, but the goal of the United States government should be to protect us from foreign threats in the United States, and they seem to be doing pretty well in that respect. After all, more people died from shark attacks or being crushed under vending machines or being struck by lightning than died at the hands of these feckless, religious nuts.
blaming President Trump for this conflict is absurd
Strawman. I never made any such claim. I hold him responsible for his response to it which has been a disaster.
As for reducing government spending – as I have already typed, all the cuts to government spending that Congress would allow
So you are telling me he made a promise he could not deliver on? That doesn’t seem a particularly positive attribute. Why could he not convince these congress people to accept cuts? That is after all his job as the leader of the party. And exactly how does doubling the defense budget, something that originated completely with him, align with his promise of government parsimony?
such as getting rid of USAID
This is a myth. USAID was not gotten rid of, it was simply hidden in the State department. They are doing all the same crap.
have been made – to make real cuts in government spending the President would have to launch a coup
Or he could have used his immense power and claimed excellence at deal making to make it happen? Or, alternatively, he could have stopped his own profligacy. A promise made and not kept is still a breach of trust no matter how many other people you want to blame.
Fraser – what promise are you refering to?
President Trump has little control over government spending. So most of your comment is just nonsense. And the left would not be spitting blood if USAID was really doing the same things it used to do – such as rigging elections for the left in various countries.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that “general welfare” was NOT the purpose of the specific spending powers granted to the Congress by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of United States, but was a “general welfare spending power” allowing the Congress to pass anything (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid – whatever it felt like passing) then the present mess became inevitable.
As for the monetary and financial system – it is already a total mess and will collapse whether or not the Federal Government defaults on its 40 Trillion Dollar debt or “pays” by creating money from nothing, which is what it already does – just by the weird methods of the Federal Reserve. It would be no more inflationary to just do this directly – without all the lending it out and borrowing it back again.
By the way I noticed your little trick about “inside the United States” – so Americans killed outside the United States do not count.
And Americans killed by the forces of Islam INSIDE the United States ALSO do not count – unless it can be proved they were killed by the Shia not the Sunni.
“It is a funny war” – not it is not, and if your “friends” ever kill you Sir – I see no reason to care.
In case anyone really does not know – NO I am not a supporter of the government creating “money” from nothing and spending it (I detest the idea) – HOWEVER this is this is what the government already does via the Federal Reserve – it just does it in a complicated way that allows various Wall Street types to wet-their-beak in the process (to the tune of at least a Trillion Dollars a year – indeed rather more than that), there is no need for this National Debt thing – not in a fiat money system. So that saves at least a Trillion Dollars a year in borrowing to pay the interest on existing debt. As I am constantly told “we are not going back to hard money” – O.K. then, in which case you do not need to borrow money that you yourself create (from nothing).
Would I like to see the Entitlements rolled back? Yes I would (indeed I wish these things had never been created – and hold that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that they were Constitutional – as “the common defense and general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers granted, otherwise there would be no need to write out the specific spending powers in Article One, Section Eight) – but Congress is not going to pass any roll back, at least not this side of an economic and social (cultural) collapse.
As for Islamic Republic of Iran – people who do not understand what “Death to America” means are beyond help.
Perhaps (perhaps) they deserve everything the IRI regime would do to them – the problem is that atomic bombs are rather indiscriminate and would not just kill Fraser and co.
I do not wish the IRI regime to have atomic bombs – because it would use them, and, as they are sincere followers of Muhammed (they are not just pretending – like some rich hereditary rulers do in that part of the world, who, in private, think the Koran and the Hadiths are false – but would have their throats cut if they ever said that openly) “deterring” them will-not-work, because they are happy to die.
And the only way to stop them getting these weapons is to kill them – to totally destroy the IRI regime.
And they are happy to push Sunni terrorists (such as Hamas and other groups) as well as their own Shia ones.
@Paul Marks
Fraser – what promise are you refering to?
Many times, at almost every speech. For example:
Federal spending has gone up every year so far, and I see no reason to think it’ll be any different for the next few years.
and the left would not be spitting blood if USAID was really doing the same things it used to do
The left spits blood about Trump irrespective of whether their accusations are true. Any excuse at all to tell us how bad Trump is. They are still talking about “good people on both sides” even though that has been debunked a hundred thousand times.
President Trump has little control over government spending.
That is completely untrue. The President sets the agenda and the budget and congress votes on it. It is his job to convince the congress that that budget is the right one. And even if what you say was true then what business does he have making promises that he can’t keep?
What happened to Trump the 4d chess player, the great deal maker? Why didn’t he “make a deal” to get his priorities through congress? Perhaps because cutting spending was never his priority, which is evident from how little backing he gave to DOGE.
You make a promise and you can’t keep it, you can’t be whining about all these other people who didn’t cooperate. You should have factored that into your plans.
President Truman famously had a sign on his desk: “The buck stops here”, that is no less true today than it was in 1950s.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that “general welfare”
I know that, you know that, apparently President Trump does not.
By the way I noticed your little trick about “inside the United States”
It isn’t a trick. It is the core responsibility of the government to protect the homeland. It is at the core of my beliefs about foreign policy that the United States should stay out of interfering all over the world, and if an American citizen leaves the protective blanket of their home country they do so at their own risk. Of course insofar as Americans did die at the hands of Iran and its proxies then they were not only abroad, but mostly abroad as members of the military, sent on orders not on volition. Again, at the core of my foreign policy beliefs is that American military should not be sticking their nose into every foreign conflict. Their role is to protect the American homeland, not conduct American politician’s will with gunboat diplomacy. This belief system is called “libertarianism”. I wish our politicians would try it some time.
The First World War was just – even the German Ambassador admitted that Berlin gave Britain no choice other than to declare war. But that does NOT mean that the tactics were correct – they were not correct, they were often utterly insane. Vast numbers of Allied soldiers (British, French, Russian, Italian…) died when they did not need to die. And chances for victory were thrown away – such as the chance to cut off the German army in 1914 – various French officers begged their own high command to move faster, in order to cut the Germans off, after the victory at the Marne – but the high command refused, and the chance to take Constantinople (and thus encircle and cut off the Central Powers) in 1915 – both the Royal Navy and the British Army acted in a totally unprofessional way, it was almost as if the commanders sent out wanted the operation to fail – or had been deliberatly picked because they were useless (but, yes, it may just have been that the British military, even then, was not as professional as it likes to claim that it is).
The Second World War was also just – but, again, there were often terrible tactical decisions – for example the terrible defeat of 1940, when superior numbers of British and French men and tanks, were defeated by the Germans – because of bad tactics by the Allies and good tactics by the Germans.
Or 1941 – when the British were defeated in the Far East by the Japanese – a totally avoidable defeat, a defeat caused by terrible decisions both in London, and on the ground in the Far East.
I made two utterly false assumptions in February 2026 – I assumed (falely assumed) that the American government understood that “talks and deals” with the Islamic Republic of Iran were pointless – because, as a religious duty, the IRI would break any agreement it made – even if breaking it cost their lives and the lives of their families (after all – to be killed by infidels in conflict guarrantees eternal bliss – just as, to kill or enslave infidels is a high moral duty), and I also assumed that the Trump Administration understood that the conflict had to be over, that the IRI regime had to be utterly destroyed, BEFORE the Midterm elections.
Both my key assumptions were wrong – neither President Trump nor Secretary of State and National Security Director Rubio seem to have understood either point that I (falsely) assumed they understood.
But none of this means the campaign was optional – it was not optional, the IRI could not be allowed to develop a shield of air defense missiles behind which to shelter its nuclear weapons program, because the IRI would USE nuclear weapons – they can not be deterred (see above).
As for Fraser – he seems to think that President Trump controls government spending – he does NOT (it is true that Congress passed the various Entitlements on the request of Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson – but once created, the Entitlements grow without any President having the power to stop their growth) . And Fraser also seems to think that conflict with the Death-to-America IRI regime is somehow optional – it is not optional.
Islam is not like Christianity (or Judaism) – it is not a matter of a few nasty passages that one can put one’s hand over, the basic philosophy is different – utterly different.
And, unlike some other rulers in the area, the IRI government is sincere (not insincere – like the governments of some other Islamic nations) – they believe in Islam, in the Koran, in the Hadiths, in the life of Muhammed (that the things that he did were moral – and that everyone should copy this “perfect model of conduct”), they can not be deterred – they will USE nuclear weapons if they get them (they can not be bribed like certain people in Pakistan), and they can not be reasoned with – not because they lack reason (far from it – they are highly intelligent and learned), but they submit their reason to Islam – it is instrumental to them, not a matter of “should I morally do this” but, rather, “how do I do this?”
They deny that moral reason can sit in judgement of Islam – sit in judgement of Allah. His hand is not “fettered” by moral laws, what He forbids (such as making true friends of Christians or Jews – although a pretence of friendship is allowed) is, they believe, wrong by-definition, and what He commands is, they believe, good by-definition.
I believe this Islamic view had some influence on Dr Luther and on John Calvin – but that is a discussion for another day.
As for Fraser – he seems to think that President Trump controls government spending
I fully understand how government spending works. I also understand how promises work — if you make a promise you’d better have the ability to fulfill it or else you are making a false promise. Trump has the power of the presidency, the mandate of the people, the leadership of the party and a powerful influence over congresspeople’s ability to get re-elected. However, Trump, the great deal maker, could not get it done. Moreover, he, himself was one of the most profligate spenders of them all, something that was entirely under his control. I don’t understand why that is confusing. That is what he promised, and he utterly failed to deliver it. Once again, the buck stops at the resolute desk.
Why do you feel the need to make excuses for the President when he clearly, unequivocally, did not do what he promised?
And Fraser also seems to think that conflict with the Death-to-America IRI regime is somehow optional – it is not optional.
I never said that conflict was optional, I said that the manner in which it is being conducted is disastrous.
That has to be one of the daftest things you’ve written. Attacking POL is without a doubt the most effective way to reduce Russian economic and military capabilities. If the price for American aid is not prosecuting the war effectively, American aid is pointless for Ukraine and clearly Ukraine is trying hard to adapt away from US dependence in as many ways as possible. My prediction is mass-of-fires plus alternative stand-off strike guidance (both old-school inertial and newer terrain and target recognition systems) will make US technical aid less and less crucial.