leicsmac

And people keep falling for the promises in spite of how rarely he keeps them. Have to have a grudging respect for how far he's elevated the grifter act.

Spot on. (Particularly regarding the bit where the more we find out, the direr the picture appears to be.) And the worst thing is that we're actively walking towards that era of untold human suffering because too many people either consider the issue abstract, beyond their control or actively don't care because nothing matters beyond the end of their own lives or they think the suffering won't otherwise touch them. We could well be giving future generations - such of those who may be left - every reason to utterly despise every one of us, both for making this happen and for letting this happen.

That is very unsurprising. One wonders how he manages to inspire loyalty when he shows next to none of it in return when things go wrong.

According to their own rules on nuclear release, this is correct. Of course, rules can be changed so while limiting their expansionist ideals is if choose a good idea, it needs to be done carefully.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02350-X/fulltext "A human-driven mass extinction is underway. The 2024 Living Planet Report reveals that the average size of monitored wildlife populations has shrunk by 73% in just 50 years, with the steepest declines in Latin America and the Caribbean (95%), Africa (76%), Asia–Pacific (60%), and in freshwater ecosystems (85%). Although estimates vary, the species extinction rate is thought to be 10–100 times higher than the natural baseline. This rapid loss of species is driven by anthropogenic overpopulation, habitat destruction, exploitation, and climate change. Industrialised societies have long adopted an extractionist perspective towards the natural world, viewing ecosystems as resources to be exploited and consumed for profit. Yet, in this pursuit, we ignore that the very ecosystems we destroy are key to our survival." While our species continues its petty and short-sighted squabbling along itself, if grossly overlooks something so much more threatening to human future.

Appreciate the clarification. I think it's possible he's engaging in a lot of bluffing, yes, and so I hope the international community that he's trying to bully is ready to call those bluffs where needed.

If it isn't obvious that Trump's policy decisions rely largely on bullying and extortion then I'm not sure when it will be tbh. However, as you say, the true acid test will be how far Putin has to move for any kind of deal. I'm not optimistic that it will be very far at all.

And reasonably typical bombast while addressing Congress. It would be wonderful if someone were to ask him if he's actually admitted fault or genuinely apologised to anyone in his whole life, even when he's done do much wrong.

For me that's as obvious an answer as it is possible to be in the diplomatic world and it's entirely in keeping with the nature of the man. Not sure how any kind of altruism can be argued from it.

It's darkly humorous - and even a little hopeful - that nations like the UK and Canada that appeared totally divided among themselves appear totally driven by unity now.

Fair to say. I do think though if he's got Trump on one side of a matter and (what he thinks is) his Lord on the other, then he might have to consider for a moment.

Just thought that Vance reminds me of a political version of Kendrick in A Few Good Men. Wouldn't surprise me if he stood up and said that the only authority he's answerable to is Donald J Trump and the Lord Our God.

Yep, him and the batting depth was enough. Still think it's rather a farce that the final of a tournament won't be held in the designated host country, but I think India will be very difficult to stop in the final.

This stands or falls on Kohli now.

India bat deep, but you get the feeling this is a critical stand.

Also, it's telling that Vance considers warfare the primary yardstick by which a nation is measured. "...you inescapably associate technological advancement of a species' power with advancement of their capacity to intentionally inflict violence on each other. The capacity for violence and the nobility of restraint in its application is just so tightly bound up in your narrative of what it means to be powerful that it ruins your suspension of disbelief to be asked to question it."

I'm sure Michael Crichton would have something to say about unintended consequences on this one, but given this is really at the very early stage it's no guarantee they'll get anywhere near where they want to go anyway.

Make this one about even money.

While idealistically this is true, a dreadful decision that results in dreadful consequences isn't any less dreadful because it's the product of people being convinced to choose it within a democratic system. The bit about democracy being the worst system of government other that all the others that have been tried is still true, but its flaws are being rather sorely exposed at the moment, and they may get even more so in the near future. Yeah. "Hey, the tw@t over there says that we're weak. Let's be tw@ts like him so he won't do it, OK?"

What was it that Sun Tzu said in The Art of War about winning while doing very little/nothing at all?

Never let it be said that Vance and his ilk aren't hypocrites, to add to every other negative quality about them.

Au contraire, it should be consistently added as many times as possible, because the more that people make their position clear that geopolitics is the filthy business you mention, the greater the possibility of it actually changing. Which, for more than moral reasons, it's rather important. ... or we can just accept we're powerless, that we're not actually going togrow up as a species, and see death, suffering and destruction in the future as a fait accompli. Guess it depends on the person. Do agree that at this point in time defence spending needs a boost across Europe.

This may well be true. However, it should in no way be acceptable by anyone with a conscience.

Just wait until China and Canada stop American air carriers landing at their airports...

On the topic of Musk, however: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e44ge0xnwo Behind the imposing doors of the world's oldest scientific academy, the Royal Society, confidential talks have been taking place. The gathering of 150 members on Monday evening was effectively a crisis meeting, held amid a growing campaign urging the society to expel its most controversial member - Elon Musk. Mr Musk's achievements earned him a fellowship of the Royal Society back in 2018., external But, over the last nine months, many scientists have raised concerns about the billionaire's behaviour, which has been called a threat to science. It is a great shame that the man decided to become Ted Faro rather than Tony Stark.