The abundance of analysts is beginning to tire me. For example, Ștefan Popescu from SNSPA: is this guy merely a realist, or is he also a defeatist and an ass-licker, like most Romanians? “Europe cannot compete with the USA. Europe will be dragged along by the USA. JD Vance has a vast European culture.” I resolve not to listen anymore to any analyst’s opinions. I’m sick of watching and listening to dozens and dozens of speculations. Can I have just facts, please?

Truth Be Told

It certainly is true that the Europeans have been caught with their knickers down. And that the UK would be reluctant to give up the special relationship it had with the US. But the US-Russia partnership is so abject that I don’t think Macron, while he’s still in power, will ever agree to abide by such a vile thing.

Then the asshole of John Mearsheimer, Russia’s longtime eulogist (in the “because NATO expanded eastward, Russia was entitled to feel threatened” sense), comes in and says triumphantly: Zelensky is a failure; he needs to go. The European “coalition of the willing” will not last and will not provide.

Then I learn that the US has banned the UK from releasing to Ukraine information previously classified as “Rel UKR” (“Releasable to Ukraine”). Assuming that the UK will not comply, what would Uncle Sam do? Will it overthrow the British government manu militari, or as it has done in the past in various Latin American countries, through a mix of CIA-backed destabilization and military support?

What we thought after 1994 remains valid, and it’s even more actual today: Russian troops withdrew from the “liberated” countries (from Nazism), but American troops did not. In the conflict between Hitler and Stalin, Uncle Sam won. And now we see the consequences.

We fear that Uncle Sam might withdraw some 20,000 troops from Europe and leave us vulnerable to Russia. But what if the US troops are themselves a threat to Europe?

Let’s take a detour through the economy

We cannot boycott American companies, nor should we. Not just for practical reasons (the interdependencies are too complex), but also for purely pragmatic reasons: we don’t need to. In the current stage of globalization, there has been, is, and will continue to be substantial trade between countries despite reciprocally highly strained political relations. The EU still imports 6% of its aluminum from Russia, three years into a war and after a dozen waves of sanctions and seizures. Not to mention China: we all love China, don’t we?

But let’s not consider ourselves so economically impotent. If most consumer brands in Europe are American, there’s a silver lining here: production is made in the EU for the EU market. To take Mondelez, KRAFT (now Kraft Heinz, fuck your mustard and ketchup), and Mars, owners of dozens of candy brands: what is sold in the EU is made in the EU. It would be idiotic to boycott European production!

And let’s bust another myth, that of the huge US GDP: there are two mechanisms that artificially inflate it. One is the one I usually simplify like this: “a product that leaves China for $1 and retails in the US for $12 (+ Sales Tax) adds about $10 to the GDP of the US, even though the entire value is produced in China.” To me, this is a way of saying that China’s real GDP is not below that of the US, but several times that of the US! No measure of GDP (PPP-adjusted, etc.) accurately models reality.

But what is relevant here is this second mechanism: when a European subsidiary of an American multinational makes a profit, the following things happen:

  • The profits realized by the European plants are fully accounted for on the parent company’s balance sheet and contribute directly to the overall financial result.
  • Complex “fiscal optimization” mechanisms allow these corporations to transfer a large part of the profits to the head office through various accounting methods, with the income recorded in jurisdictions with more favorable taxation and “optimizing” tax burdens.
  • The value of the parent company’s shares and dividends increases.
  • Profits realized outside the US are considered part of US corporate income and are recorded in the US GDP calculation as “foreign investment income”!

Basically, every euro earned by a Mondelez plant in Poland or France will eventually increase US GDP!

Now you know why the US has such a glorious GDP on paper. Per capita, of course.

GDP per capita (2024):

  • EU average: $43,353 in current prices; $62,660 when adjusted for PPP.
  • Germany: $55,521 in current prices; $70,930 when adjusted for PPP.
  • USA: $86,601 (a unique value, as the PPP adjustment is relative to the USA).

So, the following figures (GDP per capita) are absolutely useless:

  • District of Columbia $266,687
  • Luxembourg $135,321
  • New York $116,320
  • Massachusetts $110,023
  • Washington $108,051
  • California $104,796
  • Ireland $103,500

By the way, the large US IT giants based in Ireland do virtually nothing in Ireland, but they record all their European operations there for fiscal purposes. Same with Amazon EU Sàrl, Avenue John F. Kennedy 38, Luxembourg.

Bullying the bully in return?

Unfortunately, reverse blackmail wouldn’t work either. For some come and say:

ASML (Netherlands) is currently the dominant player in photolithography, particularly for advanced chips like 5nm, 7nm, 10nm, and 14nm, due to its monopoly on extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines, which are essential for manufacturing chips at 7nm and below. For 10nm and 14nm, ASML also provides deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography machines. No other company matches ASML’s EUV capabilities today. Nikon and Canon (Japan) are more into 28nm and could theoretically support 14nm with extensive multiple patterning. Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment Co. (SMEE) (China) is reportedly only capable of 28nm.

ASML’s tools are used by TSMC (Taiwan), Samsung (South Korea), and Intel (USA): TSMC is the leader in 5nm and 7nm using ASML EUV; Samsung uses ASML EUV for 5nm and 7nm, DUV for 10nm and 14nm; Intel used ASML DUV for 14nm and 10nm and is now adopting EUV for 7nm and 5nm. SMIC (China) is using ASML DUV tools to produce 14nm and reportedly 7nm with advanced patterning, but lacks EUV access due to US sanctions. But if ASML decided to sell all its equipment to China, the USA would be at a loss.

But what would Europeans gain from such a gesture?

Moreover, the technology’s sticking point is not strictly ASML, but TSMC. For example, the 3nm technology is a process developed by TSMC using ASML’s EUV lithography systems. But only in Taiwan so far (it should reach the US soonish). By the way, TSMC makes AMD processors in 7nm, 5nm, and 3nm technologies.

The Americans produce most of Intel’s processors in Oregon (10nm and 7nm, in the future also 3nm), Arizona, Ireland (7nm), Israel (10nm), and new plants are in the pipeline in Ohio (3nm) and, if the project is not canceled, Germany.

And ASML can be annihilated relatively easily by the Americans, although assembly takes place in the Netherlands. The Veldhoven facility is the heart of ASML’s EUV production; these systems are massive—each EUV machine weighs around 180 tons and consists of over 100,000 parts, with critical optical components whose sole manufacturer is Carl Zeiss SMT (Oberkochen, Germany). However, an EUV system cannot function without some “CO2 laser systems” produced in San Diego, California, by Cymer, an ASML subsidiary. And the “global outsourcing” mantra means that many more of those hundred thousand components come from “other suppliers across Europe, the US, and Asia.”

An economic war would be lose-lose-lose. Or rather, if both the US, Europe, and Taiwan (+South Korea, Japan) are on the losing end of a total deadlock, China could be left with an advantage. Weaker technology, but there it is. By the way, show me a laptop that isn’t Made in China, but speaking of the major brands, not crap like Tuxedo Computers, which are in reality 99% made in China, but in Germany they are configured as needed (RAM, SSD, keyboard, etc.) and Linux is installed on them.

Globalization means cooperation (even with dictators) or total gridlock.

And now we have 3 relevant dictators: Trump, Putin, Xi. While one may be economically insignificant, its military relevance is a different matter.

The nuclear umbrella

I don’t believe in this concept. At face value, we might agree that it worked during the first Cold War. But does it still hold any water?

Let’s take the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed on December 5, 1994. Russia violated its commitments when it annexed Crimea in 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion in 2022. The US and the UK didn’t move a finger! So it’s just a piece of paper.

But would things have been different, had Ukraine still have been in possession of nukes? I don’t think so. I just don’t!

Funny thing (if one can find fun in it), the idea that a nuclear war could destroy the planet “hundreds of times” was largely propaganda—or at least an exaggeration rooted in Cold War rhetoric rather than a realistic assessment of nuclear capabilities. Even at their height of maximum stockpiling on nukes in the 1980s, the US had ~23,000 warheads and the Soviet Union had ~40,000. So a US-USSR nuclear war could have destroyed the planet “12 times”; today, the US and Russia could annihilate the civilization “3 times” because of a diminished nuclear arsenal.

Current estimations:

  • Russia: 5,580 warheads, for a total of 1,674 megatons
  • US: 5,244 warheads, for a total of 1,049 megatons
  • France: 290 warheads, for a total of 43.5 megatons
  • UK: 225 warheads, for a total of 22.5 megatons

This is pathetic for Europe.

But let me put it this way:

  • I don’t believe that the US would have ever retaliated with nuclear weapons unless Russia or the USSR would have specifically targeted the US. The “NATO umbrella” was and is, in my opinion, an illusion. What with Trump’s behavior, we cannot rely on the US at all.
  • I don’t believe that the independent Ukraine would have resorted to nuclear retaliation against Russia in order to defend Crimea or the Donbass region. Destroy Moscow to get Kyiv destroyed, too?
  • France and the UK would also refrain from using their nuclear arsenal unless Paris or London were targeted by Russian missiles. So the “nuclear deterrent” can’t prevent Putin from attacking the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania.

I might be wrong, but this is how I feel.

What we need is conventional military. And we’re kind of lacking in this department, too.

Europe could ditch the F-16 and F-35: the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab JAS 39 Gripen remain perfectly capable, thank you. For main battle tanks, only the Leopard 2A7+ and 2A8 (Germany) and Challenger 3 (UK) are in active production. France’s Leclerc is limited to upgrades, not new builds, and Italy’s C1 Ariete ceased production years ago. The MGCS project is still early-stage, and the EMBT remains just a prototype.

European-made drones, perhaps? Among those in production, here’s what could do in a war like Ukraine’s:

  • Leonardo Falco Xplorer (Italy): a strategic asset, rivaling the Bayraktar TB2 (Turkey)—a proven game-changer in Ukraine for ISR and precision strikes.
  • Quantum-Systems Vector (Germany): already battle-tested in Ukraine, with hundreds supplied since 2023 for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and artillery spotting.
  • Schiebel Camcopter S-100 (Austria): Ukraine received several in 2023, mostly for maritime surveillance near Odesa and targeting Russian ships.
  • Parrot ANAFI USA (France, unfortunately assembled in the USA): quite a toy, but perfect for close-in ISR—like urban combat and clearing buildings.

Otherwise, the Airbus Eurodrone is not production-ready. The Dassault nEUROn and the BAE Systems Taranis are prototypes. Finally, the Saab Skeldar V-200 is mostly a helo.

How about air defense systems? Europe doesn’t produce Patriot missiles (a Lockheed Martin product), but it does manufacture several air defense systems. Medium-range systems in production include SAMP/T with Aster 30 B1NT (France and Italy, deployed in Ukraine since 2023) and IRIS-T SLM (Germany). Germany has supplied IRIS-T SLM systems to Ukraine since 2022; their success in downing cruise missiles has boosted demand, with countries like Estonia and Latvia negotiating joint purchases. Short-range systems in production include IRIS-T SLS (Germany), Aster 15 (France and Italy), and Mistral (France). No European system currently counters hypersonic missiles; IRIS-T SLX and HYDEF (Germany) remain in development, years from operation.

Could we do against Russia with what we can do ourselves? Hard to tell.

A larger, dilluted Union: cui prodest?

Uncle Sam wants to make business with Russia, so Trump is now friends with Putin. Trump believes that dismissing, disregarding, despising, and discriminating against Europe would make him able to focus on his feud with China. On the other hand, Putin believes that Xi is respecting him, which is entirely illusory. Vladimir Vladimirovich is stupid enough not to notice that countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, previously USSR republics, now have seen significant Chinese investment and thus increased economic dependence on China, especially through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Russia is nowhere and will become economically irrelevant when China won’t need to import any energy products from it.

I’m not sure that Trump would defend Taiwan. As for other claims of China’s in the South China Sea, the prospects are dire. Let’s at least hope that Xi will keep Nuclear Fatso Kim under control.

But let’s say Trump focuses on the Middle East. Iran is a hard nut, and there’s never going to be “peace” in Israel (or should I say “Palestine”?).

This leaves us to face Russia. Alone. OK, with the participation of Canada, and possibly Australia and New Zealand, which are all far away.

Note that Putin seems to agree with Ukraine (whatever will be left of it) joining the EU in the future. And there’s a reason for that. It’s called “the dilution of the European project” from 27 to a potential of 35 countries! You’ll then see what “multi-speed Europe” really means! Not to mention traitors like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico.

Concepts to be removed from dictionaries: “International law.” “World Order.” “Euro-Atlantic integration.” “Just and lasting peace.”

To be added in the New Chinese Encyclopedia: “Europe—a culture-rich theme park, partly destroyed by Russia, partly invaded by Islamists, and still having a certain nostalgia for America.”

Flee Europe. Uruguay awaits.

UPDATE 1: I have to stress on the bullying at the White House

For reasons you’ll soon understand, I decided I needed to present the full transcript of the bullying of President Zelensky by Trump and Vance. There’s a video of it here.

Vance: “For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine vand destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”

Zelenskyy: “Can I ask you?”

Vance: “Sure. Yeah.”

Zelenskyy: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the –“

Trump: “2015?”

Zelenskyy: “2014.”

Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”

Vance: “That’s exactly right.”

Zelenskyy: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”

Vance: “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”

Zelenskyy: “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”

Vance: “I have been to –”

Zelenskyy: “Come once.”

Vance: “I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems, bringing people into your military?”

Zelenskyy: “We have problems –”

Vance: “And do you think that is respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?”

Zelenskyy: “A lot of questions. Let’s start from the beginning.”

Vance: “Sure.”

Zelenskyy: “First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –”

Trump: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Zelenskyy: “I’m not telling you. I am answering on these questions.”

Trump: “Because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

Vance: “That’s exactly what you’re doing.”

Trump: “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelenskyy: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

Zelenskyy: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.”

Trump: “You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position –”

Zelenskyy: “From the very beginning of the war —”

Trump: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.”

Zelenskyy: “I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr. President. I’m very serious.”

Trump: “You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”

Zelenskyy: “What are you speaking about?”

Trump: “You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”

Vance: “Have you said thank you once?”

Zelenskyy: “A lot of times. Even today.”

Vance: “No, in this entire meeting. You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.”

Zelenskyy: “No.”

Vance: “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.”

Zelenskyy: “Please. You think that if you will speak very loudly about the war, you can –”

Trump: “He’s not speaking loudly. He’s not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble.”

Zelenskyy: “Can I answer —”

Trump: “No, no. You’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.”

Zelenskyy: “I know. I know.”

Trump: “You’re not winning. You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out OK because of us.”

Zelenskyy: “Mr. President, we are staying in our country, staying strong. From the very beginning of the war, we’ve been alone. And we are thankful. I said thanks.”

Trump: “If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.”

Zelenskyy: “In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days.”

Trump: “Maybe less. It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this, I tell you.

Vance: “Just say thank you.”

Zelenskyy: “I said a lot of times, thank you, to American people.”

Vance: “Accept that there are disagreements, and let’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you’re wrong. We know that you’re wrong.”

Trump: “But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful.”

Zelenskyy: “I’m thankful.”

Trump: “You don’t have the cards. You’re buried there. People are dying. You’re running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing, and then you tell us, ‘I don’t want a ceasefire. I don’t want a ceasefire, I want to go, and I want this.’ Look, if you can get a ceasefire right now, I tell you, you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed.”

Zelenskyy: “Of course we want to stop the war. But I said to you, with guarantees.”

Trump: “Are you saying you don’t want a ceasefire? I want a ceasefire. Because you’ll get a ceasefire faster than an agreement.”

Zelenskyy: “Ask our people about a ceasefire, what they think.”

Trump: “That wasn’t with me. That was with a guy named Biden, who is not a smart person.”

Zelenskyy: “This is your president. It was your president.”

Trump: “Excuse me. That was with Obama, who gave you sheets, and I gave you Javelins. I gave you the Javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins. You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”

Vance, restating a reporter’s question: “She is asking what if Russia breaks the ceasefire.”

Trump: “What, if anything? What if the bomb drops on your head right now? OK, what if they broke it? I don’t know, they broke it with Biden because Biden, they didn’t respect him. They didn’t respect Obama. They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt … All I can say is this. He might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did, maybe. Maybe he did. I don’t know what happened, but he didn’t break them with me. He wants to make a deal. I don’t know if you can make a deal.”

“The problem is I’ve empowered you (turning toward Zelenskyy) to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing.

“All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”

Now ponder about what kind of US President and Vice President would adopt such a language.

Then, try to understand why this short video by Konstantin Kisin enraged me: Zelensky’s Big Mistake: Why He Made It And How He Can Fix It.

  • “All he had to do was look grateful.”
  • “The way he challenged JD Vance directly in front of the cameras was catastrophically stupid.”
  • “Americans hate people painting a negative picture of their society’s future.”

OK, I admit that being adversarial with people that are supposed to be on your side isn’t going to win anything. Except that Trump and Vance were on Putin’s side! Zelensky must have been horrified. Not to mention that the proposed treaty on harvesting up to 50 percent of Ukraine’s minerals and rare earth materials already had horrendous terms that reminded me of the SovRoms.

I couldn’t help but leave this comment on YT:

You’re a complete piece of shit and one of the most retarded smart-looking individuals. I regret watching some of your videos. You pretend to be objective and pragmatic, but you don’t present the facts and give advice; you’re using Trump’s and Vance’s logic without even understanding how much else there is behind those two stupid guys. You, just like Trump, Vance, and Musk, see it all as a transaction: “The president of a corrupt country asks for money to keep functional a country that cannot win a war with Russia.” Except that Russia invaded that country, and the US had signed a memorandum in 1994 that was supposed to guarantee its sovereignty. If the US doesn’t care about Russia, why does it keep troops in Europe? If “Americans hate people painting a negative picture of their society’s future,” then they don’t want to face reality. They truly deserve a dictator, but for you to insist that this dictator is right when he’s playing Putin’s card, that’s beyond stupid.

Most comments were favorable to Kisin’s views. I selected a few more reasonable ones:

  • The moment Z said, “You will feel it in future” I knew Trump will snap back hard on him with fury.
  • One thing not mentioned is that Trump really dislikes Zelensky. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden when Trump was president last time but Zelensky refused, and Trump has not forgotten.
  • Zelensky didn’t hide his contempt for the deal the whole 50 minutes. The number of times his lip curled, or his body language gave away how the deal was not what he wanted… count them! And Vance would have had a front row seat to the attitude, which is also why things ramped up when Zelensky started pushing back.
  • Zelensky’s big mistake? Trusting NATO and America to honour their undertaking to protect Ukraine if they gave up their nukes!
  • Konstantin, have you ever said a critical word about Trump in the past year? All your concern seems to be directed at wokeness and Democrats. The worst you could aim at Trump in this piece was “I’m not saying he acted perfectly…” Can you admit you’re a partisan who now supports the right because you despise wokeness so much?
  • What Zelensky needs to understand now is that Biden is gone. It’s admirable for him to come to the US and represent his country in a state of war, but he has to understand that his goals and Trump’s goals are completely different. Trump wants a ceasefire. Zelensky wants to beat back Russia. These are not the same goals.
  • “All he had to do was look grateful and for 40 minutes Zelensky just about managed.” You might want to watch again.
  • Some valid points by Kisin which still don’t adress Trump’s terrible ways of “doing deals” which in practice means Ukraine to surrender and the spoils to be split between the US and Russia. This is the bigger picture. If Turmp (and Putin) have their ways every smaller country should fear for their security, economy, sovereignty. Denmark – as an example – has always been a loyal ally to the US but Trump doesn’t care. “Grab Greenland.” Kisin should also ask himself: Would Trump also have the same tactics towards Israel? Should he tell Nethanyahu that “he has no cards”? That “you need to want to have peace with Hamas”? “You’re playing with WWIII.”
  • Although I like to hear your opinion, the fact that Trump did not mention Putin as the invader of Ukraine and blamed Ukraine for being invaded by Russia is a lack in your defense for Trump. Trump acted like a Russian asset no matter what.
  • Very shallow understanding of geopolitical situation and what is at stake for the US and for Ukraine.
  • This commentary reminds me of soccer fans at a stadium telling the players how to play. Everyone in spectator seats knows how to play – the only people who don’t are on the field.
  • Your far-reaching Trump apologism is painful to watch.
  • Trump complains about Ukraine being corrupt, but asks their President to be corrupt on his behalf. Brilliant!

Too many influencers started going fully into Trump’s camp. Why is that?

UPDATE 2: After the speech in Congress, most people praise the Führer!

It was painful to watch. Half-dead, confused, and useless Democrats, ecstatic brainwashed Republicans, sycophantic Vance and Johnson… it was as if the speaker was Hitler or Stalin, not Trump!

The ignorant narcissistic sociopath in chief: “Eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of.”

But the American people seemed to have mostly enjoyed the show, as per this poll.

For all practical purposes, we should consider that the American people are mostly supporting their dictator, the same way the Russian people are mostly supporting theirs!

They’re against a reasonable peace in Ukraine, against democracy, and against free speech.

That’s quite sad.

UPDATE 3: On Trump’s Goebbels: Ketamine Musk

In my previous post I mentioned, with links: the “effective accelerationism” powered by Silicon Valley; the “PayPal Mafia” that includes Peter Thiel and Elon Musk; Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto; Dark Enlightenment’s philosopher Nick Land; Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldburg; the Bronze Age Pervert; and the fact that JD Vance is the one who’s directing Trump, not the other way around. The neo-reactionary movement (NRx) that considers democracy to be an obstacle to capitalism is only using MAGA as a vehicle that transported them to power, unbeknownst to the mass of stupid sheeple that compose the MAGA movement.

How about I talked a bit about the brain-damaged Musk, the DOGE hero?

I never thought of Elon Musk as of a genius, even before having the hyperloop as the final proof that he lacked both common sense and an understanding of engineering. But hundreds of millions of people pray to God Musk. They seem to have forgotten Goddess Greta Thunberg, so I suppose they chose Tesla mostly because they really love Musk.

The other day, I was directed to a recent blog post by Richard Carrier, who holds a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University and specializes in the philosophy of naturalism and humanism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, while also advocating for scientific and moral realism. Here it is: How Not to Be an Idiot: Lessons from Elon Musk.

This is how it starts:

Elon Musk is an idiot. He has never accomplished anything by himself in his life and has no remarkable competencies. He could be the most incompetent person on the planet. Like most rich people, he’s just lucky. And Luck Matters More Than Talent. He fell ass-backwards into big money, and our system protects big money. So it is impossible to have big money and not eternally gain more, no matter how stupid you are. Example: Donald Trump.

Musk, like Trump, hires people to do or invent things for him, and then takes credit when they succeed—or blames them when they fail (and they fail a lot more than you might have thought). And then he hoards all the profits. He did not invent Tesla. He just bought the company. He did not invent new rockets. He paid people to. He did not master a video game. He paid people to do it for him and then pretended he did it himself. And he did not invent PayPal. Someone else did; he just worked there (and if you thought otherwise, you were duped by his grift—congratulations!).

And when Musk tries to actually do something himself, literally everything he touches gets fucked up, from self-driving cars to Twitter to the government; even PayPal—that’s why they fired him. He was so bad at it that his own staff revolted and insisted he be canned. Indeed, nearly everyone who has ever worked for him says he is a shitty leader who has no business running companies. But alas, like other rich people who fail upwards, Musk’s contracted severance package for being axed from (what was then) PayPal for incompetence launched his entire career as a moneybagged gunknozzle.

For other aspects of Elon Musk being a fraud (“Planes should fly straight on the map”; “Millions of people aged 150+ are receiving social security checks”; “The COVID panic is dumb”), please read the original.

Among the rich guys who are the façade of the neo-reactionary accelerationist movement, Trump is the uneducated dumb, whereas Musk is the educated fraud.

UPDATE 4: Macron goes nuclear

President Macron had an address to the French in the evening of Wednesday, March 5. The official site of the Élysée Palace doesn’t have a transcript, but rather this video on YouTube that lacks the first 15 seconds. A better video is this one, posted on the same account 2 hours later. Maybe they’ll update the page. Another version has been posted on Dailymotion by CNEWS. Finally, FRANCE 24 English has a voice-over version that’s unpleasant to follow, because Macron spoke rather rapidly and the ending of each sentence is not always clearly marked through intonation. A very quick summary by Euronews: Macron to discuss nuclear deterrence with European allies, says Russia a threat to France and Europe.

Here’s my unofficial transcript of the entire speech:

Françaises, Français, mes chers compatriotes,

Je m’adresse à vous ce soir en raison de la situation internationale, et de ses conséquences pour notre pays et pour l’Europe. Et cela, après plusieurs semaines d’action diplomatique.

Vous êtes en effet, je le sais, légitimement inquiets devant les événements historiques en cours qui bouleversent l’ordre mondial. La guerre en Ukraine, qui a entraîné près d’un million de morts et de blessés, continue avec la même intensité. Les États-Unis d’Amérique, notre allié, ont changé leur position sur cette guerre, soutiennent moins l’Ukraine et laissent planer le doute sur la suite.

Dans le même temps, les mêmes États-Unis d’Amérique entendent imposer des tarifs douaniers aux produits venant d’Europe. Enfin, le monde continue d’être sans cesse plus brutal et la menace terroriste ne faiblit pas. Au total, notre prospérité et notre sécurité sont devenues plus incertaines et il faut bien le dire, nous rentrons dans une nouvelle ère.

La guerre en Ukraine dure maintenant depuis plus de trois ans. Nous avons dès le premier jour décidé de soutenir l’Ukraine et de sanctionner la Russie. Et nous avons bien fait, car c’est non seulement le peuple ukrainien qui lutte avec courage pour sa liberté, mais c’est aussi notre sécurité qui est menacé.

En effet, si un pays peut envahir impunément son voisin en Europe, alors personne ne peut plus être sûr de rien. Et c’est la loi du plus fort qui s’applique, et la paix ne peut plus être garantie sur notre continent même. L’histoire nous l’a enseigné. Au delà de l’Ukraine, la menace russe est là et touche les pays d’Europe, nous touche.

La Russie a déjà fait du conflit ukrainien un conflit mondial. Elle a mobilisé sur notre continent des soldats nord-coréens, des équipements iraniens, tout en aidant ces pays à s’armer davantage. La Russie du président Poutine viole nos frontières pour assassiner des opposants, manipule les élections en Roumanie, en Moldavie, elle organise des attaques numériques contre nos hôpitaux pour en bloquer le fonctionnement.

La Russie tente de manipuler nos opinions avec des mensonges diffusés sur les réseaux sociaux et au fond, elle teste nos limites. Elle le fait dans les airs, en mer, dans l’espace et derrière nos écrans. Cette agressivité ne semble pas connaître de frontières et la Russie, dans le même temps, continue de se réarmer, dépensant plus de 40 pour cent de son budget à cette fin. D’ici 2030, elle prévoit d’encore accroître son armée, d’avoir 300 000 soldats supplémentaires, 3 000 chars, 300 avions de chasse de plus. Qui peut donc croire dans ce contexte que la Russie d’aujourd’hui s’arrêtera à l’Ukraine?

La Russie est devenue, au moment ou je vous parle et pour les années à venir, une menace pour la France et pour l’Europe.

Je le regrette très profondément et je suis convaincu qu’à long terme, la paix se fera sur notre continent avec une Russie redevenue apaisée et pacifique. Mais la situation que je vous décris est celle-là et nous devons faire avec. Alors, face à ce monde de dangers, rester spectateur serait une folie.

Il s’agit sans plus tarder de prendre des décisions pour l’Ukraine, pour la sécurité des Français, pour la sécurité des Européens. Pour l’Ukraine d’abord. Toutes les initiatives qui aident à la paix vont dans le bon sens. Et je veux ce soir les saluer. Nous devons continuer d’aider les Ukrainiens à résister jusqu’à ce qu’ils puissent négocier avec la Russie une paix solide pour eux mêmes et pour nous tous.

C’est pour cela que le chemin qui mène à la paix ne peut pas passer par l’abandon de l’Ukraine. Bien au contraire, la paix ne peut pas être conclue à n’importe quel prix et sous le dictat russe. La paix ne peut pas être la capitulation de l’Ukraine. Elle ne peut pas être son effondrement. Elle ne peut pas davantage se traduire par un cessez-le-feu qui serait trop fragile. Et pourquoi? Parce que là aussi, nous avons l’expérience du passé. Nous ne pouvons pas oublier que la Russie a commencé d’envahir l’Ukraine dès 2014 et que nous avons alors négocié un cessez le feu, à Minsk. Et la même Russie n’a pas respecté ce cessez-le-feu et nous n’avons pas été capables de maintenir les équilibres, faute de garanties solides.

Aujourd’hui, on ne peut plus croire la Russie sur parole. L’Ukraine a droit à la paix et la sécurité pour elle même, et c’est notre intérêt et c’est l’intérêt de la sécurité du continent européen. C’est en ce sens que nous travaillons avec nos amis britanniques, allemands et plusieurs autres pays européens.

C’est pourquoi vous m’avez vu ces dernières semaines rassembler plusieurs d’entre eux à Paris, allait les retrouver il y a quelques jours à Londres, pour consolider les engagements qui sont nécessaires à l’Ukraine. Une fois la paix signée, pour que l’Ukraine ne soit pas à nouveau envahie par la Russie, il nous faut le préparer.

Cela passera à coup sûr par un soutien à l’armée ukrainienne dans la durée. Cela passera aussi peut être par le déploiement de forces européennes. Celle-ci n’irait pas se battre aujourd’hui. Elle n’irait pas se battre sur la ligne de front, mais elle serait là, au contraire, une fois la paix signée pour en garantir le plein respect.

Dès la semaine prochaine, nous réunirons à Paris les chefs d’état-major des pays qui souhaitent prendre leurs responsabilités à cet égard. C’est ainsi un plan pour une paix solide, durable, vérifiable que nous avons préparé avec les Ukrainiens et plusieurs autres partenaires européens et que j’ai été défendre aux États-Unis il y a 15 jours et à travers l’Europe.

Et je veux croire que les États-Unis resteront à nos côtés. Mais il nous faut être prêt si tel n’était pas le cas. Que la paix en Ukraine soit acquise rapidement ou non, les états européens doivent, compte tenu de la menace russe que je viens de vous décrire, être capables de mieux se défendre et de dissuader toute nouvelle agression.

Oui, quoi qu’il advienne, il nous faut nous équiper davantage, hauser notre position de défense et cela pour la paix même, pour dissuader. À ce titre, nous restons attachés à l’OTAN et à notre partenariat avec les États-Unis d’Amérique. Mais il nous faut faire plus, renforcer notre indépendance en matière de défense et de sécurité.

L’avenir de l’Europe n’a pas à être tranché à Washington ou à Moscou et oui, la menace revient à l’Est et l’innocence en quelque sorte des 30 dernières années depuis la chute du mur de Berlin est désormais révolue. À Bruxelles, demain, lors du conseil extraordinaire qui réunira les 27 chefs d’État et et de gouvernement avec la Commission et le président du Conseil, nous franchirons des pas décisifs.

Plusieurs décisions seront prises que la France proposait depuis plusieurs années. Les états membres pourront accroître leurs dépenses militaires sans que cela soit pris en compte dans leur déficit, des financements communs massifs seront décidés pour acheter et produire sur le sol européen des munitions, des chars, des armes, des équipements parmi les plus innovants.

J’ai demandé au gouvernement d’être mobilisé pour que, d’une part, cela renforce nos armées le plus rapidement possible et, d’autre part, que cela accélère la réindustrialisation dans toutes nos régions et je réunirai, avec les ministres compétents, les industriels du secteur dans les prochains jours.

L’Europe de la défense que nous défendons depuis huit ans devient donc une réalité. Cela veut dire des pays européens davantage prêts à se défendre et à se protéger, qui produisent ensemble les équipements dont ils ont besoin sur leur sol, qui sont prêts à davantage coopérer à réduire leur dépendance à l’égard du reste du monde. Et c’est une bonne chose.

L’Allemagne, la Pologne, le Danemark, les États baltes et nombre de nos partenaires ont annoncé des efforts inédits en matière de dépenses militaires. Alors, dans ce temps de l’action qui s’ouvre enfin, la France a un statut particulier. Nous avons l’armée la plus efficace d’Europe et grâce au choix fait par nos aînés après la deuxième guerre mondiale, nous sommes dotés de capacités de dissuasion nucléaire.

Ceci nous protège beaucoup plus que nombre de nos voisins. Et de plus, nous n’avons pas attendu l’invasion de l’Ukraine pour faire le constat d’un monde inquiétant et à travers les deux lois de programmation militaire que j’ai décidé et que les parlements successifs ont voté, nous aurons doublé le budget de nos armées en presque 10 ans.

Mais compte tenu de l’évolution des menaces de cette accélération que je viens de décrire, nous aurons à faire de nouveaux choix budgétaires et des investissements supplémentaires qui sont désormais devenus indispensables. J’ai demandé au gouvernement d’y travailler le plus vite possible. Ce seront de nouveaux investissements qui exigent de mobiliser des financements privés, mais aussi des financements publics sans que les impôts ne soient augmentés.

Pour cela, il faudra des réformes, des choix, du courage. Notre dissuasion nucléaire nous protège. Elle est complète, souveraine, française de bout en bout. Elle a, depuis 1964 de manière explicite, toujours joué un rôle dans la préservation de la paix et de la sécurité en Europe. Mais répondant à l’appel historique du futur chancelier allemand, j’ai décidé d’ouvrir le débat stratégique sur la protection par notre dissuasion de nos alliés du continent européen.

Quoi qu’il arrive, la décision a toujours été et restera entre les mains du président de la République, chef des armées. Maîtriser notre destin, devenir plus indépendant, nous devons y œuvrer au plan militaire, mais aussi au plan économique. Oui, l’indépendance économique, technologique, industrielle et financière sont des nécessités.

Nous devons aussi nous préparer à ce que les États-Unis décident de tarif douanier sur les marchandises européennes, comme ils viennent de le confirmer à l’encontre du Canada et du Mexique. Cette décision incompréhensible, tant pour l’économie américaine que pour la nôtre, aura des conséquences sur certaines de nos filières.

Elle accroît la difficulté du moment, mais elle ne restera pas sans réponse de notre part. Alors, tout en préparant la riposte avec nos collègues européens, nous continuerons, comme je l’ai fait voilà 15 jours, à tout tenter pour convaincre que cette décision nous ferait du mal à tous. Et j’espère, oui, convaincre et en dissuader le président des États-Unis d’Amérique.

Au total, le moment exige des décisions sans précédent depuis bien des décennies. Sur notre agriculture, notre recherche, notre industrie, sur toutes nos politiques publiques, nous ne pouvons pas avoir les mêmes débats que naguère. C’est pourquoi j’ai demandé au premier ministre, à son gouvernement, et j’invite toutes les forces politiques, économiques et syndicales du pays à leurs côtés, à faire des propositions à l’aune de ce nouveau contexte. Les solutions de demain ne pourront être les habitudes d’hier.

Mes chers compatriotes, face à ces défis et ces changements irréversibles, il ne faut céder à aucun excès. Ni l’excès des va-t-en-guerre, ni l’excès des défaitistes. La France ne suivra qu’un cap, celui de la volonté pour la paix et la liberté, fidèle en cela à son histoire et à ses principes.

Oui, c’est ce en quoi nous croyons pour notre sécurité. Mais c’est ce en quoi nous croyons aussi pour défendre la démocratie, une certaine idée de la vérité, une certaine idée d’une recherche libre, du respect dans nos sociétés, une certaine idée de la liberté d’expression qui n’est pas le retour des discours de haine. Au fond, une certaine idée de l’humanisme, c’est cela ce que nous portons et qui se joue.

Notre Europe possède la force économique, la puissance et les talents pour être à la hauteur de cette époque et que nous nous comparions aux États-Unis d’Amérique et à fortiori à la Russie, nous en avons les moyens. Nous devons donc agir en étant unis en européens et déterminés à nous protéger. C’est pourquoi la patrie a besoin de vous, de votre engagement.

Les décisions politiques, les équipements militaires et les budgets sont une chose. Mais ils ne remplaceront jamais la force d’âme d’une nation. Notre génération ne touchera plus les dividendes de la paix. Il ne tient qu’à nous que nos enfants récoltent demain les dividendes de nos engagements. Alors nous ferons face ensemble.

Vive la République. Vive la France.

UPDATE 5: ChatGPT and Grok 3 on Trump

Roman Sheremeta, on X:

1/ An interesting analysis by ChatGPT on the psychological aspects of the meeting between Zelensky and Trump-Vance is circulating online.

It reveals a masterclass in gaslighting, manipulation, and coercion from Trump and his entourage. Let’s break it down.

2/ Blaming the victim:
Trump tells Zelensky, “You allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.”

This is a classic abuser’s tactic—shifting blame onto the victim. As if it’s Ukraine’s fault that russia invaded and is killing its people.

3/ Forcing “gratitude”:
Vance pressures Zelensky to say “thank you.”

This is a toxic tactic—forcing a victim to express gratitude for essential aid, then later accusing them of ingratitude if they dare to defend their rights.

4/ Manipulating the idea of “peace”:
Trump says Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” But what he means is capitulation.

This is manipulation—replacing the concept of just peace with surrender.

5/ Denying the reality of war:
Trump repeatedly says Zelensky “has no cards.”

This is another abusive technique—devaluing the victim’s efforts and portraying them as powerless without the mercy of the “savior.”

6/ Devaluing war victims:
“If you have a ceasefire, you have to accept it so that the bullets stop flying and your people stop dying.”

But a ceasefire without guarantees is just a chance for russia to regroup and strike again. Trump ignores this reality.

7/ Dominance tactics:
Trump interrupts Zelensky, cuts him off:

“No, no, you’ve said enough.”
“You’re in no position to dictate to us.”

This is psychological pressure—establishing a hierarchy where Zelensky is treated as a subordinate.

8/ Forcing capitulation under “diplomacy”:
Vance claims “the path to peace is through diplomacy.”

This is classic manipulation—framing surrender as “diplomacy” while letting the aggressor continue unchecked.

9/ Projection & blame-shifting:
Trump tells Zelensky, “You are playing with the lives of millions.”

But this is exactly what Trump does—shifting responsibility to Zelensky while ignoring russia’s role as the aggressor.

10/ Creating the illusion of debt:
Yes, the U.S. supports Ukraine. But framing it as “you must obey, or you get nothing” is not partnership—it’s coercion.

Support should not come with ultimatums that undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.

11/ Erasing Ukrainian resilience:
Trump claims, “Without our weapons, this war would be over in two weeks.”

This devalues Ukraine’s fight, portraying its survival as solely dependent on the U.S., rather than recognizing its own strength.

12/ Conclusion:
Trump and his team used a full arsenal of gaslighting, victim-blaming, forced gratitude, manipulation, and coercion.

This was not a negotiation. It was an attempt to pressure Zelensky into accepting conditions deadly for Ukraine.

By Zez Vaz

Ed Krassenstein, also on X:

Holy cow!

Elon Musk’s Grok AI literally thinks Trump is a Russia asset.

“I estimate a 75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties.” — Grok

●●● What is the likelihood from 1-100 that Trump is a Putin compromised asset. Use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies.

● Grok: Assessing the likelihood that Donald Trump is a compromised asset of Vladimir Putin, based on publicly available information from 1980 onward, involves analyzing a complex web of financial ties, personal interactions, political behavior, and circumstantial evidence. This is not a definitive determination but an estimation grounded in patterns and data accessible as of March 4, 2025. The question highlights Trump’s consistent reluctance to criticize Putin juxtaposed against his frequent attacks on U.S. allies, which is a key behavioral indicator to consider alongside historical and financial context.

From the 1980s onward, Trump’s business dealings provide a starting point. Public records show he pursued real estate ventures with significant Russian financial involvement. In 1987, Trump visited Moscow, a trip facilitated by Soviet officials, sparking speculation about early cultivation by Russian intelligence—speculation later fueled by former KGB agent Yuri Shvets, who claimed Trump was targeted as a potential asset due to his ego and financial vulnerabilities. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, as Trump faced bankruptcies, he increasingly relied on funding from sources tied to Russia and former Soviet states. His sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, made statements reinforcing this: Donald Jr. in 2008 said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and Eric in 2014 claimed, “We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” The Trump Organization’s partnerships, like with the Bayrock Group (led by Tevfik Arif and Felix Sater, the latter with known Russian mafia ties), and sales of properties to Russian oligarchs (e.g., Dmitry Rybolovlev’s 2008 purchase of a Trump property for $95 million), suggest a dependency on Russian money that could create leverage.

Intelligence reports and investigations add weight. The 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community assessment concluded Putin authorized interference in the 2016 election to favor Trump, a finding supported by the Mueller Report, which, while not proving criminal conspiracy, documented extensive Trump campaign-Russia contacts (over 100 by some counts). The unverified Steele Dossier alleges kompromat from Trump’s 2013 Moscow trip during the Miss Universe pageant, a claim echoed by speculation about earlier visits. Leaked Kremlin documents reported by The Guardian in 2021 suggest Putin personally approved a 2016 operation to back Trump, viewing him as “mentally unstable” and exploitable, with potential compromising material from past Moscow visits. The disappearance of a classified binder of Russia intelligence post-Trump term, as reported by Reuters in 2023, further stokes suspicions of hidden ties.

Trump’s behavior as president and beyond is striking. He has never directly criticized Putin, even when pressed—e.g., at the 2018 Helsinki summit, he sided with Putin’s denial of election interference over U.S. intelligence. Post-presidency, Bob Woodward’s 2024 book War alleges Trump spoke to Putin up to seven times, including a secretive 2024 call at Mar-a-Lago. Contrast this with his attacks on NATO allies, calling them “delinquent” on payments, or his 2025 Oval Office clash with Ukraine’s Zelenskyy, where he blamed Ukraine for Russia’s invasion—echoing Kremlin talking points. This pattern deviates from decades of U.S. policy and aligns with Russian interests, like weakening NATO and Ukraine.

Counterarguments exist: Trump’s administration imposed sanctions on Russia (e.g., over Skripal poisoning in 2018), expelled diplomats, and armed Ukraine—actions Putin wouldn’t favor. Some argue his pro-Russia stance reflects a misguided belief he can outmaneuver Putin, not compromise. Yet these measures were often driven by Congress or aides over Trump’s objections, and he downplayed their significance, maintaining personal warmth toward Putin.

Weighing this, the financial ties (decades-long, opaque, and substantial), intelligence suggesting Russian intent, and Trump’s unwavering refusal to criticize Putin despite attacking allies tilt the scale. The lack of transparency—e.g., hiding tax returns, seizing interpreter notes after Putin talks—amplifies suspicion. No smoking gun proves direct control, but the “useful idiot” scenario, where Trump’s ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable, fits the evidence. Adjusting for uncertainty and alternative explanations (e.g., ideological alignment or naivety), I estimate a 75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties. This range reflects the strength of circumstantial evidence tempered by the absence of conclusive proof, a gap unlikely to close without classified data.

Note that this is the version of Grok that only searches tweets before answering, not the entire Internet. In this case, it cherry-picked 6 “X posts” as references. It’s not clear how much information from other sources and stored in the model itself helped it reach this conclusion.