Search results

As I wrote, they can invoke Article 5 if they think it's needed. Europe is capable of defending itself against any external or internal threat. NATO was formed to deal with the USSR. European NATO is now much more powerful and Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union. Attacked NATO members...

Or maybe it won't lead to any. Russia hasn't resorted to using nuclear weapons to resolve its frustrations in Ukraine. It's easy to spitball cases for countries acquiring nukes and delivery systems. Costs a lot of money, though, to address a threat that doesn't seem to be a material risk for...

As I wrote above: "There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?" This is exactly the kind of stuff Europe, and individual European nations, could deal with on their own. Tolerate, or respond. Or invoke Article 5, if they think it will help.

NATO has always had the WP or Russia on its borders, so it has always failed to keep the bad guys away. Oh, well.

No, but hoping Congress isn't going to get "on side" with the administration isn't a sure thing. The administration is taking the heat for tariffs; Congress will take the heat for the increase in the deficit or a counterbalancing increase in other taxes. There are enough short-horizon...

Every tariff struck down represents a revenue loss (deficit increase) that drops into Congress's lap. Neither party is eager to deal with that problem.

NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance. It should stay that way. If Europe wants to act as an interventionist bloc the same way the US sometimes acts alone, Europe should either work in bespoke coalitions or interested partners should create another formal alliance. This is particular...

I can't imagine wanting to read a transcript of his remarks, let alone spend even more time watching them unfold verbally.

One of the most enjoyable parts of the whole circus is how they kicked the deficit up to that number and then will pretend that by reducing it a little in future years they are being responsible. "Sure, I set your house on fire, but then I put it out before it did too much damage."

Tariffs and similar counter-measures are self-inflicted damage. We were stupid enough to use them instead of waiting 10 months, too.

That's your strawman, not a claim I make. Without reading the charter, I'm going to guess that joining a military intervention on behalf of a non-NATO member nation is discretionary, not obligatory, for NATO members. I've repeatedly pointed out how much time concerned nations have had to join...

Better to have dissent/dissatisfaction out in the open where it can be assessed, as well as to bleed some of the pressure off. Sometimes people just want to be heard and feel like they were heard. Politicians can't attempt to address grievances they don't know about, and are disinclined to...

Never underestimate the power of style over substance. People repeatedly confirm they prefer smiles and socks over dour boring competent administration.

Most countries didn't have a CUSMA to exempt a bunch of stuff, and confidence in the likelihood of the outcome had to be measured in terms of how long it would take to get there, especially through courts. Congress could have intervened to oppose or to reinforce presidential tariff powers...

A win. Almost all of the legal tea-leaf readers were correct. Like prior administrations, this one may try to find other excuses (powers) for what it wants to do and carry on while those are litigated. If this one (IEEPA) was chosen because they figured it was their best shot, the likelihood...

I don't overestimate the ability of governments committed to various flavours of centralization to acquire, assimilate, and act on the massive amount of information needed to adequately grip what hundreds of millions of people are up to, or even a few hundred in the uppermost echelons.

I don't know what America should get, but either more of a "peace dividend" than it has taken or a reapportioning of more of its European-committed [forces] to other locations could be high on any list. As the USSR and WP collapsed and countries formerly on the Soviet side of the "correlation...

There's no "oh please". The CCP simply doesn't have a hard grip on everything that goes on.

I know that part. Don't care. The additional bridge is a good idea, and Moroun isn't entitled to a lack of competition. I am interested in the idea of non-federal levels of government cutting deals with foreign governments. In the specific case, it's just between the US and Canada, and seems...

There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?