Anyboy who has read the book that brought Vance his 15+ minutes of fame recognizes that the man is a condescending twat and a poor writer as well. The book is all about him at the expense of most of his own family. He aptly reflects the egotistical self-aggrandizing MAGA crowd in America.
One of the most galling aspects of these zero sum pronouncements from US aspiring statesmen is that they conveniently forget that US hegemony is as a consequence of States working together. The degree of allyship which must be paramount in context of incoming global stress by climate suggests that they simply do not care about a future beyond the current generation.
Mr. Ash: Thanks for sharing your considerable knowledge and informed views. Russian imperialistic aggression must be met with strength and resolve, as do expected unwelcome moves on the part of China. The West's tactics on how to accomplish both of these goals is a critical subject of discussion requiring serious consideration.
it feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black when claiming that a Trump 2.0 would be a kleptocracy given the current president's sale of the nation for personal benefit as well as the decisions that have led Europe to their current state.
while all politicians are venal, and I agree that Putin is likely to show the lie in his story about not wanting NATO on his borders by moving further in the event of a total victory, it is no bad thing that the Europan's feet are held to the fire for a long time given their complete abdication of their security responsibilities over the past 50 years
I think there is broad agreement that Europe's neglect of their own security (not counting a few exceptions) is a very bad thing. However, I question whether open rhetoric by the U.S. threatening abandonment in the face of a rapidly intensifying crisis is the right approach (see Mr. Ash's comments on the timing of this message). While I, of course, don't know what has been said behind closed doors, I think that increasing the intensity and especially the quality of diplomatic efforts is a better approach. If threats need to be made (and this may be the case), let that be done behind closed doors, outside of the hearing of powerful ambitious despots.
Anyboy who has read the book that brought Vance his 15+ minutes of fame recognizes that the man is a condescending twat and a poor writer as well. The book is all about him at the expense of most of his own family. He aptly reflects the egotistical self-aggrandizing MAGA crowd in America.
One of the most galling aspects of these zero sum pronouncements from US aspiring statesmen is that they conveniently forget that US hegemony is as a consequence of States working together. The degree of allyship which must be paramount in context of incoming global stress by climate suggests that they simply do not care about a future beyond the current generation.
I doubt they even care about the current generation. The MAGA crowd is the original "me-generation."
Mr. Ash: Thanks for sharing your considerable knowledge and informed views. Russian imperialistic aggression must be met with strength and resolve, as do expected unwelcome moves on the part of China. The West's tactics on how to accomplish both of these goals is a critical subject of discussion requiring serious consideration.
it feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black when claiming that a Trump 2.0 would be a kleptocracy given the current president's sale of the nation for personal benefit as well as the decisions that have led Europe to their current state.
while all politicians are venal, and I agree that Putin is likely to show the lie in his story about not wanting NATO on his borders by moving further in the event of a total victory, it is no bad thing that the Europan's feet are held to the fire for a long time given their complete abdication of their security responsibilities over the past 50 years
I think there is broad agreement that Europe's neglect of their own security (not counting a few exceptions) is a very bad thing. However, I question whether open rhetoric by the U.S. threatening abandonment in the face of a rapidly intensifying crisis is the right approach (see Mr. Ash's comments on the timing of this message). While I, of course, don't know what has been said behind closed doors, I think that increasing the intensity and especially the quality of diplomatic efforts is a better approach. If threats need to be made (and this may be the case), let that be done behind closed doors, outside of the hearing of powerful ambitious despots.