Iran War?

[HisMajestyBOB]

It does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction: States are an extension of the leader. You do things to the state to force the leader to comply; if you kill the leader then that's the ultimate sanction. The state and the population is almost incidental.

It'll be interesting to see how that view holds up.

A very 17th century view.

[Zanza]

It does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction: States are an extension of the leader. You do things to the state to force the leader to comply; if you kill the leader then that's the ultimate sanction. The state and the population is almost incidental.

It'll be interesting to see how that view holds up.

Not surprising in a country run by maybe the greatest narcissist alive.

[Duque de Bragança]

I like how the Greens and Schröder (Herr Gazprom who called Putin a perfect democrat) are completely blameless on the whole nuclear affair in Germany. 

Whereas a single opportunistic and demagogic "Conservative" leader, reneging conservative policies, serves as a strawman for the whole German conservatives, themselves in uneasy coalitions most of the time.

[Threviel]

The sensible thing would be to invest massively into renewables, storage, transmission and electrify the economy, transport, and private heating. The only way to gain energy independence for Europe is solar and wind power.

The only way is not correct, both nuclear and coal is possible, with some input from oil, gas and hydro. Solar and wind is never going to cut it except as (important) complements to a good base supply.

[The Minsky Moment]

It does suggest a very personalized view of state to state interaction

That has always been Trump's characteristic approach to foreign policy. It's all about the relationship between him as a person and the top leader of the other country. It's why he is most comfortable dealing with dictators where the individual personality is dominant, and least comfortable dealing with free democratic states where the leader is a public servant.

[Jacob]

That has always been Trump's characteristic approach to foreign policy. It's all about the relationship between him as a person and the top leader of the other country. It's why he is most comfortable dealing with dictators where the individual personality is dominant, and least comfortable dealing with free democratic states where the leader is a public servant.

I concur

[Jacob]

What's the response in the US? I'm less looped in to American domestic media than I used to be, but I'm still curious -

How much rallying around the flag "defending freedom" are you seeing in American media and among the public?

I mean, I assume that the core of the Trumpists are 100% on board, and committed anti-Trumpists are against. But are there cracks in Republican unity on this? Are there Democrats who are "serious foreign policy people" who are in favour? And what are the prevailing "main street" narratives right now?

[Legbiter]

The temporarily acting supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Arafeh, was killed after new strikes on Tehran, according to Israeli media.

He was appointed this morning to replace Khamenei, who was also killed yesterday in strikes by the US and Israel.

https://x.com/GloOouD/status/2028162022345507244

Janitor strategy in full swing.

[mongers]

'He should have come to a deal sooner, he kept delaying it, now he's gone, too bad, his fault for starting the war in the first place.'


trump's likely response to a Russian assassination of Zelensky?

Followed a few hours later with a beautifully productive phone conversation with putin?

[Zanza]

I like how the Greens and Schröder (Herr Gazprom who called Putin a perfect democrat) are completely blameless on the whole nuclear affair in Germany. 

They implemented a policy that was both popular and part of their electoral promises. And they did it open-ended and more flexible than the Conservatives & Liberals (not an uneasy coalition!) in 2011. And they did kickstart the aforementioned renewables boom. Overall, a much more balanced policy in the early 2000s than the one implemented by the Conservatives in 2011. Even acknowledging Schröders role in Nordstream I.

Whereas a single opportunistic and demagogic "Conservative" leader, reneging conservative policies, serves as a strawman for the whole German conservatives, themselves in uneasy coalitions most of the time.

Sure. Germany stopped building nuclear reactors in the 80s when Kohl ruled, notably also in conservative regions like Bavaria or Baden-Wurttemberg. In 2011, besides Merkel, leading conservatives like Söder, Röttgen etc. supported the policy and the support by the parliamentary faction was unanimous...

These days our conservatives are following fantasy concepts like e-fuels or so. Not serious.

[Zanza]

The only way is not correct, both nuclear and coal is possible, with some input from oil, gas and hydro. Solar and wind is never going to cut it except as (important) complements to a good base supply.

Europe imports 100% of its uranium usage and 67% of hard coal usage. Maybe we have a different understanding of energy independence?

[The Minsky Moment]

You can get uranium from Canada.  So not independent but a bit more secure than gas supplies from the Middle East.  It's not like you have to worry about a hostile power blockading Canada ....

Actually, never mind, you're right after all.