Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lex Dekkers's avatar

What strikes me is that there is so little opposition, both domestically and from abroad. Nobody laughs in his face, or calls him out. No need to insult, but simply state the (embarrassing) facts. Nothing! From nobody!

Opinion pieces galore, but no seriously effective opposition. Who has the guts to stand up against him, head-on, mano a mano?

Joe Zeigler's avatar

Krugman is right about the headline and almost understated about the diagnosis. This isn’t a case of a president misjudging threats. It’s a case of a president redefining “national security” to mean whatever protects his ego, his leverage, and his transactional instincts in the moment. Security policy becomes a loyalty test. Economics becomes a shakedown. Allies become obstacles.

What’s chilling is not just that Denmark, Canada, and the UK are hedging against us, but that they’re doing so rationally. Intelligence sharing depends on trust, and Trump has spent a decade proving that he treats sensitive information as a bargaining chip or a prop. You don’t hand classified material to someone who can’t tell the difference between state interest and personal flattery.

The Greenland episode, the Witkoff tape, the Section 232 farce — these aren’t isolated embarrassments. They’re signals. They tell allies that American power is now unpredictable and personalized, that rules last only until Trump feels slighted or bored. That’s how empires fracture: not with invasion, but with unreliability.

Krugman’s point about semiconductors is especially damning. Trump invokes “national security” to tax sofas, then sells off actual strategic advantage after a CEO whispers in his ear. That’s not ideology. That’s corruption with a flag draped over it.

The danger isn’t foreign enemies exploiting weakness. It’s that the weakness is intentional.

I just published an essay about the Russian peace plan: www.burnt-ground.com/ventriloquism/

533 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?