Alarming news yesterday on the Ukrainian front. PBS reported that Zelenskyy agreed to reimburse the US for military hardware with minerals etc. Yet Trump said on camera that he’s “not a fan” of Z. Harsh. Plata o plumbo. As if Ukrainians have not paid a big enough price already. With friends like us, who needs enemies.
Well, Mearsheimer tried to warn more than a decade ago that the Ukrainians were being led down the primrose path, and lo, there they find themselves ...
How about floating the idea of a "grand bargain" based on China financing and providing means for climate-safe development (ie means of production for solar, cars, etc) to Europe and developing world. Goals would be 1) to make and install renewables at a speed that would render the fossil fuel powers (US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) "stranded assets." 2) To provide a market for Chinese products that would strengthen rather than compete destructively with European and developing country economies. The door could be left open for US/Russia to join when they are ready.
Hopefully China will help with what African countries really need, infrastructure, jobs, and trade, not "aid", which was always small fish, instead of the know how of actual fishing...
All I see missing from this analysis is any recognition that at least in part the animus of the current administration to entities such as USAID is the perception that in addition to their avowed purpose (actually helping the world's poor and vulnerable) they have also been misused by the Republicans' domestic political enemies both as a breeding ground for "liberal" (this term is especially slippery in American usage, so I use the scare quotes to indicate the label is not used by MAGA Republicans in the ordinary way) larvae and a place for the adults of that species to retreat to after unsuccessful electoral cycles cast them out of their usual habitat in "the swamp" from whence they can plot their return in the next electoral cycle. Or, if you prefer a less invertebrate analogy, as chicken pox retreats after childhood infection into the recesses of the nervous system only to bloom later as serial bouts of shingles.
Once you acknowledge this, the bitterness of the denunciations such as the one itemized here where one would otherwise expect anodyne disinterest becomes a little clearer -- this is a not-so-civil domestic political war being fought in every institution where Americans of either political stripe are to be found. Sadly, as in all wars, the innocent suffer the most ...
As a long-time educator and practitioner of sustainable development, this 'Schmidtian attack' on the SDGs both saddens me and galvanizes my commitment to facilitating collective efforts for social justice, equitable wealth creation and environmental sustainability. There's an army of young people out there around the world who care not a whit for the negativity coming out of Washington, and are more than ready to get stuck in at every level of social organization. Some of these 'wins' and some of this 'hope' is made visible in our forthcoming collection from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Transforming-Education-for-Sustainable-Development-Global-Perspectives-from-Classroom-to-Practice/Galloway-Brown-Carmody-Rodriguez-Swatuk/p/book/9781032492285
It’s increasingly clear that the West (including its media, think tanks, etc) have never been committed to addressing climate change and sustainable development. It was always weaponised morality, to force developing economies to abide by Western rules when it suits the West. Why would EU impose tariffs on EV imports, why talk about “de-risking” when it comes to China, when the real risk comes from the US? Why talk about HR in China and Russia but neglect a genocide in Gaza? Why talk about democracy when Romanian politicians are prevented running in elections? The hypocrisy is rising daily.
We must look to the BRICs and Global South to tackle the challenges that humanity faces in the 21st century.
"We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty. "
The staggering cheek of this remark, and to cloak it with the mantle of "moral and civic duty", an antithesis to the tRump agenda, which is taking a flame-thrower approach to "moral and civic duty".
Of course Trump is right about this. Feel good resolutions are worthless and waste time and money on drivel. To the degree they set up international organizations that would attempt to restrict US freedom of action, they will be captured by hostile forces and used to our detriment. The US should declare its principles and let people know what they might face if those principles are violated. It should negotiate its interests with other nations without role for international organizations.
I think the US, as the world's richest country, should continue to fund the reasonably effective foreign aid programs, without requiring a direct US benefit. The way the Trump admin is going about the tear down is horrifying. I hope and believe most honest people left and right think the same. At the same time, because these programs and the security of much of the "free" world essentially depends on US economic and military power, I think it's right to reject the "international order" thinking they have a say in how we should conduct our domestic and foreign policies. It is all a charade and more often than not a ludicrous one that asks us to pretend that China other powers have any interest other than ruthless self interest that doesn't give a damn about humanitarian or environmental causes.
Trump has won points for his “candor.” But if he’s dropping pretense, he should allow the candid analysis of US history. Which he suppresses with attacks on progressive academics. The insistence of having things both ways is the hallmark of a salesman and a tyrant.
Turns out empire has its downsides. Trump is taking some of America’s toys and going home while reorienting others to cold blooded geopolitical interests.
I think if the US were an empire, it's probably the most benign one the world has ever known, and certainly more benign than any rival nation during its existence. Trump proves this by antithesis.
And there is something in that which makes me half-understand people who support him. They see how Europeans, whose welfare states they helped prop up with their defence shield, would moan about American hegemony and look down on American culture and politics.
They see how the third world flirt with China and accuse America of racism and neo- imperialism despite saving hundreds of thousands of lives through its foreign aid.
The Trump supporters think - "OK, you can find out how it really is then".
That of course is it's own ignorance, its own failure to recognize how the benefits of the deal of hegemony flow both ways. The rich benefit more than most (don't they always?), but every single American has lower taxes and more government spending, and cheaper goods, because of that deal. They will be poorer for forgetting the bargain, just like the rest of us. But part of me sort of understands their resentment.
Come on Feral, you know that is not true. One of the whole cynical points of NATO in the first place was to manage the Europeans for the simple reason they like to create their own security concerns with each other. You can see this now with the over the top EU saber rattling. Only now it's hilarious instead of concerning because they lack the armies to have slap fights with.
So you're fine if we pull out of NATO and stop supporting Ukraine then? You're confident that the US is the main problem in Europe, and if the US is removed, everything will nicely resolve on its own?
Because pulling out is certainly the action I am inclined to take when I read European internet commenters. Seems nothing the US does will ever satisfy them.
If most of what the US does is bad, I don't see how you can complain if the US chooses to do less.
So tell us, for example, of how the German populace, not sated with reunification, now seek the return of Alsace-Lorraine, then move on to undoing Austria, how Italian politicians won't shut up about how France secretly sponsors Welsh separatism while Sapin hungrily eyes Portugal.
What you and other NATO apologists offer, is classic abuser logic. The world is scary, we are doing this to protect you, and you must accept our abuse as the price of protection.
How the heck am I a NATO apologist if I want to pull out?
As an American voter, I don't have super fine grained control over US foreign policy. At best, I feel I can either get (a) more US foreign policy in Europe, or (b) less US foreign policy in Europe. I know the US is bad at foreign policy. That's why I currently favor less US foreign policy in Europe, which means US out of NATO.
>The world is scary, we are doing this to protect you, and you must accept our abuse as the price of protection.
I just want you to take a coherent position here. If the world isn't scary, then you should be happy to see us pull out. That way you won't have to suffer our "abuse". Everyone will be happy!
I think we're basically in agreement here actually, that the US should go. I'm just not sure why you're so antagonistic towards me, when we are basically on the same page.
I feel like you are begging the question so I'll avoid the obvious bait.
In a would where American military aid did not exist, how would WWII have gone? Would Europe have been able to have formed a united and credible defensive alliance against the Soviet Union? What would have happened to the countries of Eastern Europe after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact?
We have had 80 years of peace under the American security umbrella. It's not the *only* factor, but it can hardly be an unimportant one.
Weird isn't it, how many countries were clamouring to get under that umbrella the moment they were allowed?
Uhm. And no. "Europe" and Russia didn't have peaceful relations before the US "poked the bear". Germany in particular has struggled to deal with Soviet bullshit for a long time and continues to.
Sure. Lots of examples to share. No doubt. I just don't agree with the b/w viewpoint. There's lots of blame to share with other countries that are happy to take shelter behind, benefit from (often aid and abet) our maleficence. I didn't really appreciate that as much as I do now, until I moved out of the country and saw it from the outside.
Your credulity regarding the character of America in the world is duly noted. You will, I hope, understand when I choose to demur? But I wholeheartedly share your observation about the unequal domestic division of spoils, and it is at the feet of those who crafted and sustained that arrangement where I lay responsibility for the coming whirlwind ...
I wasn't saying the US wasn't without sin, I was saying it was on the whole preferable to any other global power. Can you name me a one that was better historically? Or a current alternative that would be?
Thanks for this - you have a powerful voice and you use it well!
I appreciate every word of this post (btw, I am also very angry with the German electorate - I for one didn't vote for the next government)!
It is devastating that so few of us seem to understand that any form of global cooperation, even if it is just a promise in the beginning (you said in a Ones-and-Tooze- episode you were all for "hypocrisy" as opposed to cynicism because at least there was a promise which the other side could call in - otherwise any progress was virtually impossible) general solidarity and measures to mitigate climate change are not somehow a "nice-to-have" luxury "if we can afford it" but the only way how we can survive in the future without a massive acceleration of crises, catastrophes and wars/civil wars which will virtually destroy all we have taken for granted...
I am not well grounded in the SDG issues nor Karl Schmitt writings. As such l found this comment by prof. Tooze more difficult to follow and I don't completely understand its implications. That's unusual for me as a subscriber to his substack and a follower of his columns on FT.
Thanks -- and astonishing that this was not reported at all -- completely missed this total play with words by the US diplomat to counter UN ; the SDGs are dead, and yet only a few years back, when Ba Moon had talked of them and said "we have no plan B" , there was so much hope that we are in it all together.
Trump II (or Trumpism II) is fourth wave Reaganism, this time toward "Communist China." For the Chinese leadership, peaceful coexistence is second wave Stalinist delusion. For Trump and the capitalist class he represents, if the Chinese leadership doesn't crack, then it's onto WWIII. In the meantime, they need to get basic industry, i.e., war capacity, back in the U.S. and their European and Asian allies remilitarized.
Alarming news yesterday on the Ukrainian front. PBS reported that Zelenskyy agreed to reimburse the US for military hardware with minerals etc. Yet Trump said on camera that he’s “not a fan” of Z. Harsh. Plata o plumbo. As if Ukrainians have not paid a big enough price already. With friends like us, who needs enemies.
Well, Mearsheimer tried to warn more than a decade ago that the Ukrainians were being led down the primrose path, and lo, there they find themselves ...
I see this simply as an end to one set of nonsense (Biden - we are America everyone expects us to fund this and we will do forever)
and another (Trump - MAGA = America is no longer great so Make Americans Great Again at the expense of anyone else.)
A little reality, a little lunacy. But this is the Thucydides moment and China has already taken over from the US, so weird stuff is to be expected.
How about floating the idea of a "grand bargain" based on China financing and providing means for climate-safe development (ie means of production for solar, cars, etc) to Europe and developing world. Goals would be 1) to make and install renewables at a speed that would render the fossil fuel powers (US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) "stranded assets." 2) To provide a market for Chinese products that would strengthen rather than compete destructively with European and developing country economies. The door could be left open for US/Russia to join when they are ready.
America leads where nobody wants to follow.
Hopefully China will help with what African countries really need, infrastructure, jobs, and trade, not "aid", which was always small fish, instead of the know how of actual fishing...
neutrality is an ideology too
All I see missing from this analysis is any recognition that at least in part the animus of the current administration to entities such as USAID is the perception that in addition to their avowed purpose (actually helping the world's poor and vulnerable) they have also been misused by the Republicans' domestic political enemies both as a breeding ground for "liberal" (this term is especially slippery in American usage, so I use the scare quotes to indicate the label is not used by MAGA Republicans in the ordinary way) larvae and a place for the adults of that species to retreat to after unsuccessful electoral cycles cast them out of their usual habitat in "the swamp" from whence they can plot their return in the next electoral cycle. Or, if you prefer a less invertebrate analogy, as chicken pox retreats after childhood infection into the recesses of the nervous system only to bloom later as serial bouts of shingles.
Once you acknowledge this, the bitterness of the denunciations such as the one itemized here where one would otherwise expect anodyne disinterest becomes a little clearer -- this is a not-so-civil domestic political war being fought in every institution where Americans of either political stripe are to be found. Sadly, as in all wars, the innocent suffer the most ...
As a long-time educator and practitioner of sustainable development, this 'Schmidtian attack' on the SDGs both saddens me and galvanizes my commitment to facilitating collective efforts for social justice, equitable wealth creation and environmental sustainability. There's an army of young people out there around the world who care not a whit for the negativity coming out of Washington, and are more than ready to get stuck in at every level of social organization. Some of these 'wins' and some of this 'hope' is made visible in our forthcoming collection from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Transforming-Education-for-Sustainable-Development-Global-Perspectives-from-Classroom-to-Practice/Galloway-Brown-Carmody-Rodriguez-Swatuk/p/book/9781032492285
It’s increasingly clear that the West (including its media, think tanks, etc) have never been committed to addressing climate change and sustainable development. It was always weaponised morality, to force developing economies to abide by Western rules when it suits the West. Why would EU impose tariffs on EV imports, why talk about “de-risking” when it comes to China, when the real risk comes from the US? Why talk about HR in China and Russia but neglect a genocide in Gaza? Why talk about democracy when Romanian politicians are prevented running in elections? The hypocrisy is rising daily.
We must look to the BRICs and Global South to tackle the challenges that humanity faces in the 21st century.
"We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty. "
The staggering cheek of this remark, and to cloak it with the mantle of "moral and civic duty", an antithesis to the tRump agenda, which is taking a flame-thrower approach to "moral and civic duty".
Utterly shameless and delusional.
Of course Trump is right about this. Feel good resolutions are worthless and waste time and money on drivel. To the degree they set up international organizations that would attempt to restrict US freedom of action, they will be captured by hostile forces and used to our detriment. The US should declare its principles and let people know what they might face if those principles are violated. It should negotiate its interests with other nations without role for international organizations.
I think the US, as the world's richest country, should continue to fund the reasonably effective foreign aid programs, without requiring a direct US benefit. The way the Trump admin is going about the tear down is horrifying. I hope and believe most honest people left and right think the same. At the same time, because these programs and the security of much of the "free" world essentially depends on US economic and military power, I think it's right to reject the "international order" thinking they have a say in how we should conduct our domestic and foreign policies. It is all a charade and more often than not a ludicrous one that asks us to pretend that China other powers have any interest other than ruthless self interest that doesn't give a damn about humanitarian or environmental causes.
Trump is simply the US dropping the pious pretense of being anything other than an empire.
Trump has won points for his “candor.” But if he’s dropping pretense, he should allow the candid analysis of US history. Which he suppresses with attacks on progressive academics. The insistence of having things both ways is the hallmark of a salesman and a tyrant.
I have awarded Trump no such points. If the US is dropping pretenses, it's only because there's no longer any point in keeping up the charades.
Turns out empire has its downsides. Trump is taking some of America’s toys and going home while reorienting others to cold blooded geopolitical interests.
I think if the US were an empire, it's probably the most benign one the world has ever known, and certainly more benign than any rival nation during its existence. Trump proves this by antithesis.
And there is something in that which makes me half-understand people who support him. They see how Europeans, whose welfare states they helped prop up with their defence shield, would moan about American hegemony and look down on American culture and politics.
They see how the third world flirt with China and accuse America of racism and neo- imperialism despite saving hundreds of thousands of lives through its foreign aid.
The Trump supporters think - "OK, you can find out how it really is then".
That of course is it's own ignorance, its own failure to recognize how the benefits of the deal of hegemony flow both ways. The rich benefit more than most (don't they always?), but every single American has lower taxes and more government spending, and cheaper goods, because of that deal. They will be poorer for forgetting the bargain, just like the rest of us. But part of me sort of understands their resentment.
Every empire tells itself that.
Europe, for one, would have no security concerns, were it not for America and its wars.
Come on Feral, you know that is not true. One of the whole cynical points of NATO in the first place was to manage the Europeans for the simple reason they like to create their own security concerns with each other. You can see this now with the over the top EU saber rattling. Only now it's hilarious instead of concerning because they lack the armies to have slap fights with.
You think that, if NATO had disappeared in 1991, that europeans, the biggest metrosexuals on the planet, would be going to war with each other?
Come on.
One of Europe's biggest innovations has been fighting new and exciting reasons to go to war with each other for the last 2000 years.
And you have not noticed a change in the european mentality between, say, 1941 and 1991?
So you're fine if we pull out of NATO and stop supporting Ukraine then? You're confident that the US is the main problem in Europe, and if the US is removed, everything will nicely resolve on its own?
Because pulling out is certainly the action I am inclined to take when I read European internet commenters. Seems nothing the US does will ever satisfy them.
If most of what the US does is bad, I don't see how you can complain if the US chooses to do less.
So tell us, for example, of how the German populace, not sated with reunification, now seek the return of Alsace-Lorraine, then move on to undoing Austria, how Italian politicians won't shut up about how France secretly sponsors Welsh separatism while Sapin hungrily eyes Portugal.
What you and other NATO apologists offer, is classic abuser logic. The world is scary, we are doing this to protect you, and you must accept our abuse as the price of protection.
How the heck am I a NATO apologist if I want to pull out?
As an American voter, I don't have super fine grained control over US foreign policy. At best, I feel I can either get (a) more US foreign policy in Europe, or (b) less US foreign policy in Europe. I know the US is bad at foreign policy. That's why I currently favor less US foreign policy in Europe, which means US out of NATO.
>The world is scary, we are doing this to protect you, and you must accept our abuse as the price of protection.
I just want you to take a coherent position here. If the world isn't scary, then you should be happy to see us pull out. That way you won't have to suffer our "abuse". Everyone will be happy!
I think we're basically in agreement here actually, that the US should go. I'm just not sure why you're so antagonistic towards me, when we are basically on the same page.
Well, I certainly favor pulling the plug on NATO.
Has any continent anywhere in the world ever had no security concerns for any extended period?
So what security concerns is europe facing, other than those stemming from the United States' empire?
I feel like you are begging the question so I'll avoid the obvious bait.
In a would where American military aid did not exist, how would WWII have gone? Would Europe have been able to have formed a united and credible defensive alliance against the Soviet Union? What would have happened to the countries of Eastern Europe after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact?
We have had 80 years of peace under the American security umbrella. It's not the *only* factor, but it can hardly be an unimportant one.
Weird isn't it, how many countries were clamouring to get under that umbrella the moment they were allowed?
You are arguing with a different point. The idea that after 1991, europeans were itching to face off again, is absurd.
None huh? 😂🙄😂🙄
Note that, to give one example, refugees were not flooding into europe before the United States decided to attack Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
Note that europe and Russia had decent relations until the Americans decided they had to poke the bear.
Uhm. And no. "Europe" and Russia didn't have peaceful relations before the US "poked the bear". Germany in particular has struggled to deal with Soviet bullshit for a long time and continues to.
Um, so that explains Nordstream, which was built in spite of vociferous American objections?
Sure. Lots of examples to share. No doubt. I just don't agree with the b/w viewpoint. There's lots of blame to share with other countries that are happy to take shelter behind, benefit from (often aid and abet) our maleficence. I didn't really appreciate that as much as I do now, until I moved out of the country and saw it from the outside.
You think I never lived abroad?
Your credulity regarding the character of America in the world is duly noted. You will, I hope, understand when I choose to demur? But I wholeheartedly share your observation about the unequal domestic division of spoils, and it is at the feet of those who crafted and sustained that arrangement where I lay responsibility for the coming whirlwind ...
I wasn't saying the US wasn't without sin, I was saying it was on the whole preferable to any other global power. Can you name me a one that was better historically? Or a current alternative that would be?
I prefer a multipolar world "disorder" with regional powers to hegemony by anyone. None of them are trustworthy.
Thanks for this - you have a powerful voice and you use it well!
I appreciate every word of this post (btw, I am also very angry with the German electorate - I for one didn't vote for the next government)!
It is devastating that so few of us seem to understand that any form of global cooperation, even if it is just a promise in the beginning (you said in a Ones-and-Tooze- episode you were all for "hypocrisy" as opposed to cynicism because at least there was a promise which the other side could call in - otherwise any progress was virtually impossible) general solidarity and measures to mitigate climate change are not somehow a "nice-to-have" luxury "if we can afford it" but the only way how we can survive in the future without a massive acceleration of crises, catastrophes and wars/civil wars which will virtually destroy all we have taken for granted...
I am not well grounded in the SDG issues nor Karl Schmitt writings. As such l found this comment by prof. Tooze more difficult to follow and I don't completely understand its implications. That's unusual for me as a subscriber to his substack and a follower of his columns on FT.
Thanks -- and astonishing that this was not reported at all -- completely missed this total play with words by the US diplomat to counter UN ; the SDGs are dead, and yet only a few years back, when Ba Moon had talked of them and said "we have no plan B" , there was so much hope that we are in it all together.
"Nada vuelve; Todo es otra cosa."
Trump II (or Trumpism II) is fourth wave Reaganism, this time toward "Communist China." For the Chinese leadership, peaceful coexistence is second wave Stalinist delusion. For Trump and the capitalist class he represents, if the Chinese leadership doesn't crack, then it's onto WWIII. In the meantime, they need to get basic industry, i.e., war capacity, back in the U.S. and their European and Asian allies remilitarized.
Hello Adam,
I hope this communique finds you in a moment of stillness. Have huge respect for your work.
We’ve just opened the first door of something we’ve been quietly crafting for years—
A work not meant for markets, but for reflection and memory.
Not designed to perform, but to endure.
It’s called The Silent Treasury.
A place where judgment is kept like firewood: dry, sacred, and meant for long winters.
Where trust, patience, and self-stewardship are treated as capital—more rare, perhaps, than liquidity itself.
This first piece speaks to a quiet truth we’ve long sat with:
Why many modern PE, VC, Hedge, Alt funds, SPAC, and rollups fracture before they truly root.
And what it means to build something meant to be left, not merely exited.
It’s not short. Or viral. But it’s built to last.
And if it speaks to something you’ve always known but rarely seen expressed,
then perhaps this work belongs in your world.
The publication link is enclosed, should you wish to open it.
https://helloin.substack.com/p/built-to-be-left?r=5i8pez
Warmly,
The Silent Treasury
A vault where wisdom echoes in stillness, and eternity breathes.