33 Comments

This is what the majority of American swing state voters wanted.

Expand full comment

The colour scheme on the map is barely legible. All shades with lots of blue don't contrast well on a computer screen.

Expand full comment

Interesting points.

Let's hope everyone calms down sometime in the near future. To throw at each other hi tech objects may look fancy until all is left is rocks... Which is essentially what supposedly highly trained people are contemplating in the end. Have we really moved on from the stone age?

Expand full comment

Why would America play both sides?

Expand full comment

It would depend on who is in control in the US at the time of the war, if there is one. If Democrats retake power, the US would be dark blue. If Trump/MAGA holds on, it might actually have a rapprochement with Russia and China, and be light red.

Alternatively, the purple means the US will be hostile to China but neutral vs Russia, if the China hawks in the Trump admin seize control from the doves.

Expand full comment

That makes sense, although if the US is making amends with Russia and China I doubt there'd be a multinational war to begin with.

Expand full comment

Judging from the woke fever swamps, they’re all saying that NATO/Europe totally doesn’t need the US when it comes to defense, Canada could totally take on the US if we invaded, the US is a corrupt joke moving against “democracy” and towards “authoritarianism”, and so on.

Putting it another way, the woke crowd are repeating the exact same lines they have been about Russia and Ukraine, except substituting the US and Canada/Greenland/EU. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, any more than it did with Ukraine.

Based on this, I’d say there’s a non-minuscule chance of a U.S.-NATO war in the next twenty years. Higher if the China hawks in the US are successfully suppressed and sidelined. Russia and China won’t assist directly any more than China has in Ukraine.

Expand full comment

Interesting, NATO is our puppet so I don't think we'll have a war, however I could see us cutting our losses with our puppet if they find themselves in a war of their own.

Expand full comment

I think of NATO a bit differently: that it's a liberal woke globalist protection racket, not a US puppet per se. Its being a "US puppet" is a misleading impression contingent on liberal woke globalists being in control of the US.

If they're not, as apparently now, then NATO will show plenty of independence, or more correctly being more of an EU/UK puppet. I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, NATO expels the US or the US leaves, and then NATO admits Ukraine, especially if the Democrats further implode and demonstrate they have no chance of regaining control in 2028, and Zelensky hangs on.

Expand full comment

NATO exists to keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down, according to it's first leader. I wouldn't describe NATO as independent now, the puppets from the old Liberal regime are just still in charge, I imagine we'll see some more agreeable puppets soon, both to MAGA and Europeans.

Expand full comment

Because America is weak?

Expand full comment

America is stronger right now than any of the countries on this list. In ten years, even in a pessimistic scenario, it will be stronger than the vast majority. This is not a good explanation.

Expand full comment

Stronger in what?

Russia has shown US military hardware to be pricey yet less than impressive.

US doesn't have the industrial capacity to produce artillery shells, artillery, tanks, boring infantry stuff, etc.

US lagging the OECD in various health metrics, education, infrastructure, and quality of life.

US GDP too concentrated in finance and personal consumption; has become too dependent on imports.

US political class hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

If ignorance = strength then indeed, the US is #1.

Expand full comment
5dEdited

Your argument is fucking retarded. Canada and Mexico are shown as not sitting the war out. You think America is weaker than Canada and Mexico? Do you have a functioning brain? If you’re going to give a single explanatory cause for why America sits it out, it needs to have EXPLANATORY POWER, which means other countries that meet that criteria would also have to sit the war out, and that’s if I accept your stupid premise that America is a militarily weak nation when everyone in the world knows that it’s a military superpower, even if on the decline.

Expand full comment

You have trouble understanding the meaning of “play both sides”?

There are idiotic wars that the US will instigate but not participate in because they are weak. Ukraine was the latest example.

Expand full comment

I would argue that would not mean the US is playing both sides, just using vassals in war.

Expand full comment

Your explanation is that Canada is going to have a larger army to send than the United States.

You’re an idiot. Your proposed answer implies that Canada will be militarily stronger than the US, which is why it picks a side and America more or less sits it out/plays both sides.

Expand full comment

Unless you are assuming that somehow Algeria will take over Western Sahara, it should be the same colour as Morocco, I think...

Expand full comment

This is stupid. Ain’t none of that gonna happen. Stopped reading after the first few lines; the whole article is based on a flimsy, false premise.

Expand full comment

Global zionists? More like global anti-zionists. And global Islam. Against Israel. Trump’s being a dipshit with NATO but at least he’s got his head on straight when it comes to the Middle East.

Expand full comment

Why would Suriname, Bolivia, and Uruguay join the revisionist powers? They'd be cut off from their allies and surrounded by their enemies.

Expand full comment

As I recall, Germany was content to purchase Russian gas. But meddlesome Washington had a problem with it.

"Dear JD Vance, don't let the door hit you on your way out. We, the people of Europe, got this."

Expand full comment

NordStream was blown up under Biden.

Expand full comment

And Trump told them they were too reliant on Russian gas and they mocked him for it.

Expand full comment

You mean during his first term when he still had neocons like Bolton and Pompeo around? Or Pence, who just came out again standing with Ukraine?

Get back to me if he says that again. Somehow, I don't think he will.

Expand full comment
2dEdited

You have to think of his motives. He wanted europe to buy American natural gas so of course he’s going to say it. I seriously doubt it was pence or Bolton leading the charge in that philosophy.

Also consider the context, Nordestream 2 was in the process of being built. Well, that was taken care of a few years ago when it was blown up, and Germany hopefully learned their lesson relying on Russia so I don’t think it’ll be a relevant topic of conversation this time.

Expand full comment

Partisan American politics is irrelevant in international affairs. VP Vance is representing the US and its foreign policy. If he doesn't want to acknowledge past malfeasance, he shouldn't have taken the job. But this is par for the course for politicians.

Expand full comment

Yes, the new administration is acknowledging past malfeasance. What do you think DOGE is doing?

Expand full comment

DOGE is cherry-picking government waste to perpetuate the woke distraction.

Expand full comment