I ‘m glad to say that I wasn’t taken in
December 2017 https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/12/22/it-doesnt-make-any-sense/
April 2019 https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2019/04/18/putin-derangement-syndrome-after-mueller/
April 2021 https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2021/04/07/theyre-not-even-trying-to-make-sense-now/
My goodness! Trump’s done it again. From a mess of bloviation, trash talking, boasting, theatrical productions, deception and deflection, empty gestures and gas, he’s made something. The Israel-Iran war is apparently stopping (for now). And, part of the deal is that we are all supposed to agree that Iran’s nuclear program has been obliterated so we must all stop talking about it. (Interesting to see how that bit of mental gymnastics is handled.)
Some people whose analysis I respect (notably “Armchair Warlord” and “Simplicius”) suspected a theatrical production from the start (did any B2s even fly there?) and I was reminded of other wonderful, spectacular, powerful nothingburgers from Trump.1. For example in 2017 the loud and completely ineffective strike on Syria with a reprise the next year. Inconsistent inconsistencies I called them. The American strike was matched by Tehran’s equally theatrical production today: advance warning, loud bangs, victory claims and not much else. (But from Tehran’s perspective some more Patriot missiles used up: how many are left in the locker do you suppose? 600 to be produced this year they say but they keep needing more and more in Ukraine and there’s a lot to be replaced in Israel.)
So, what have we learned?
Questions for the future
My predictions.
One final observation.
For 500 years, the West has been confident that all the best, the most powerful, the most sophisticated weapons have been in its arsenal. That hasn’t been true for some time and now the world has seen so. I was fascinated that Israel would show these photos of F14s it had destroyed as if it had accomplished something. Manned aircraft? That’s so yesterday.
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/11/23/nato-a-dangerous-paper-tiger/.
And, now that it’s given up about half of its stuff to be blown up in Ukraine, what kind of tiger would you call it now?
Trump 1.0 was advised by the Blob. I think Trump 2.0 is being advised by people better clued in. After all, JD and Tulsi (Presidents 48 and 49?) have been there and done that.
Clocking off after another mind-blowing day and having a drink or two or three. The Trump Team is inside the enemy’s decision loop. Amazing to watch.
Well, “Fuck the EU” she said, and here we are.
Vance’s speech was a bombshell. Left them weeping, it did. Gotta say though, if Zelensky is where you find your “values and principals” these days, I think you should look somewhere else. We can only hope that Vance’s lecture has killed this sanctimonious and hypocritical values talk. Or reduced it a bit, anyway.
Many see it as complementary to Putin’s speech in the same forum in 2007, Here it is for comparison. For example: “Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves” certainly strikes a chord with Vance’s speech. But Putin’s principal theme (quoting FDR) was that security is indivisible. And surely that is the truth that we see in 2025: if one major player feels insecure then, at the end – say, in 18 years — everybody will. And here we are. The light-hearted attempt to destroy the country that “makes nothing” now has the IISS bemoaning the fact that Russia makes more weapons than all of Europe. Europeans, so confident so recently, now give themselves the fantods about Russia invading.
Two days before, the new US Defense Secretary had put in the first punch: Ukraine is now Europe’s problem. Lots of people are commenting on these announcements and the forthcoming negotiations between Moscow and Washington. This is my little addition to the discussion.
But first read my essay from 2018 on how to fix Ukraine because I think we are starting down that road. It will be a long road and there is still more fighting to come. One can hope, though, with the revelation of how short a time “as long as it takes” is, that the wretched Ukrainians pressed into the slaughterhouse will abandon the Galician cause and vote with their feet. (I am trying to train myself to always remember the distinction between Ukrainians and Galicians).
Everyone should recognise that it would have been more honest had Hegseth admitted Washington’s responsibilities starting from coddling Bandera, building up Stetsko, the five billion dollars, the cookies and “Yats is our guy”. OK, I appreciate that a new team is there, that the new team plans to make big and real changes across the board, is very much the opposite of the last Administration, but still Washington has been the principal author of the Ukrainian cataclysm. After all, in its original declaration of independence Kiev wanted to be neutral and, as Nuland said, it took a lot of money to change things. So some admission of Washington’s very (VERY) large role in the catastrophe would have been more sincere than leaving the impression that the Europeans did it themselves. As to de-industrialisation, don’t pretend Washington had nothing to do with blowing up the gas line that powered it; Nordstream wasn’t eaten by a passing shark. At least Vance said “we” when he talked about uncontrolled “refugee” admission. So, altogether, some admission that Europe was following Washington’s lead in many of these errors would have been better.
But the speeches were certainly truth bombs.
What have we learned? Well, something that Moscow learned a long time ago: Washington is not reliable (the complicated Russia word is недоговороспособны which essentially means that you can’t make an agreement with it and even if you do, it won’t keep it). In a word, Washington caused the Ukraine disaster and, now that it’s gone irredeemably bad, is walking away from it and leaving it to Europe. The simple geopolitical truth is that the United States of America lives on an invulnerable island, with weak and friendly neighbours. No outside force can do anything to it except by the mutual suicide of nuclear weapons. It took Moscow a while to learn it but, eventually, all the broken promises taught it that Washington’s word was worthless. So, in the negotiations that start tomorrow, Moscow is not going to take anything for granted and will accept no verbal assertions.
Now Europe has learned this. In the simplest, bluntest and most brutal terms the fact that has just hit it in the face is that USA is over there and Russia is here. The USA can make a mess anywhere and walk away at any time; remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Well now it’s you.
So Europe, there’re four things you’d better do immediately: 1) figure out what your real interests are; 2) get yourself into a position to defend them; 3) make your peace with Moscow. (A European master of realpolitik told you years ago “The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia“.) And fourth, read and meditate on the joint Russia-Chinese statement of three years ago. Why? Because that’s the future. What to do? – the European Dilemma. But to start on this program you’ll certainly need a different bunch at the top, won’t you? The German elections next week will give us a clue.
What is the Trump team’s idea of a new world? My guess at the moment is that it envisions a future world of three Great Powers each with its own sphere of interest (I would further guess that it sees Europe in the US sphere and not on its own). This is very far from what the Chinese Foreign Minister spoke of at Munich which would be a world of many countries, big and small, rich and poor, all with a voice deserving of a listen and that is the future Moscow envisions also. See the joint statement and bear in mind that both Russia and China were exceptionalist powers before they learned that that’s a dead end. So, if I’m reading these tea leaves aright, there is still much to be worked out between Washington and Moscow-Beijing. The talks that start tomorrow are the first step in a long and painful road. They will require many adjustments by the American side because Washington doesn’t fully understand how much the correlation of forces has changed and I’m not confident that it can. In a week or so we’ll have a better idea.
Interesting times, indeed.
PS Someone the other day referred to me as a Cassandra: a prophet, usually pessimistic, often right but doomed never to be believed. I guess that’s a sort of compliment. Depressing though to have several friends close me out as a “Putin apologist”.
(The title is a homage to the late Udo Ulfkotte whose book Gekaufte-Journalisten described how reporters in Europe were bribed and controlled by the CIA. A conspiracy theory Wikipedia assures us. Bet they’ll be editing that out pretty soon!)
We are told (by Politico, of all things) that DOGE’s attention was drawn to USAID by the suspicion that it was trying to end-run Trump’s freeze on foreign aid spending. DOGE entered the building on 27 January and two weeks later, the name came off and most of its employees were dismissed. A fortuitous choice as it turned out because it uncovered a long, expensive and remarkably varied list of highly suspect expenditures.
What I am concerned with here is this part of USAID’s activities: USAID’s funding of over 6,000 journalists, 1,000 platforms worldwide raises concerns over independence and transparency; USAID: $270 Million for ‘Independent’ Journalists; USAID Funded Massive ‘News’ Platform, Extending ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’ To Billions Worldwide. Reporters Without Borders sums it up (disapprovingly)
President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including over $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) denounces this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty. […] According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organizations dedicated to strengthening independent media. The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.
“Independent” indeed. A quarter of a billion for the year 2025 and similar sums for decades! If any other country were doing this it would be called propaganda, disinformation or shoving their POV down your throat.
Can’t call Ulfkotte a conspiracy theorist after that, can you? USAID was a major producer of what you could call the news that fits. One can wonder how often these planted stories were picked up by truly independent sources, reinforcing the disinformation creators’ convictions, and then fed back into the decision loop in Washington. Could that explain the endless series of catastrophes and failures? Drinking your own bathwater is never a good diet.
A particularly significant consequence of DOGE’s strangling of that fake news factory is felt in Ukraine. The Kyiv Post informs us that USAID Funding Halt Leaves Ukrainian Media Seeking Support and another Ukrainian source tells us 59,2% of journalists predict US international grant suspension to have catastrophic impact – IMI survey. Meanwhile none other than the WaPo (not a recipient as far as we know) tells us Independent media in Russia, Ukraine lose their funding with USAID freeze.” “Independent media”! Bet there was a powerful feedback loop there!
************************************
This is Day 21 of DOGE; imagine what we’ll know on Day 63.
************************************
At least the Soviets were straight-up about their propaganda. Pravda (Truth) said on its masthead that it was the Organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Izvestiya (News) was the “news” of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This is what the Party wants you to believe and this what the government wants you to know. In case there’s any doubt who’s in charge, the Constitution tells you that the CPSU is the leading and guiding force in the USSR. No hiding behind sanctimonious mottoes like “Democracy dies in darkness” or “The Most Trusted Name in News”.
In answer to a question from Sputnik on what difference the US election choice would make on US-Russia relations.
Before one speculates on the difference the choice might make to the foreign behaviour of a country whose foreign behaviour never seems to change, I think there is a more important question to think about.
I expect Trump to be re-elected but will he be elected by a lawyer-proof margin? If he does not win by an enormous and undeniable margin, there will follow an avalanche of lawfare, hanging chads, “lost” ballots discovered, judicial rulings and counter-rulings, foreign interference stories, security organ accusations, fake news, Electoral College struggles, ballot counts and re-counts stretching on for months and months. But more to the point, protests, riots, burnings, attacks, assaults. There’s even talk of secession. Are we looking at the possibility of as third American civil war developing? Many fear so – here, here, here, here, here. At least one group is preparing to shut down DC.
If the US is tied up in a mess of riots and legal battles in the full complexity of its curious election system, let alone a full scale civil war, what possible foreign policy would it have? Especially against the background of its enormous debt, forever wars and COVID failures.
Overseas issues will be the least of its concerns.
First Published Strategic Culture Foundation
In January 2018 I advanced the hypothesis that US President Trump understood that the only way to “Make American Great Again” was to disentangle it from the imperial mission that had it stuck in perpetual wars. I suggested that the cutting of this “Gordian Knot of entanglements” was difficult, even impossible, to accomplish from his end and that he understood that the cutting could only come from the other side. I followed up with another look the next March. I now look at my hypothesis as Trump’s first term comes to an end.
While we are no closer to knowing whether this is indeed Trump’s strategy or an unintended consequence of his behaviour, it is clear that the “Gordian knot of US imperial entanglements” is under great strain.
German-American relations provide an observation point. There are four demands the Trump Administration makes of its allies – Huawei, Iran, Nord Stream 2 and defence spending – and all four converge on Germany. Germany is one of the most important American allies; it is probably the second-most important NATO member; it is the economic engine of the European Union. Should it truly defy Washington on these issues, there would be fundamental damage to the US imperium. (And, if George Friedman is correct in stating that preventing a Germany-Russia coalition is the “primordial interest” of the USA, the damage could be greater still.) And yet that is what we are looking at: on several issues Berlin is defying Washington.
Washington is determined to knock Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications company, out of the running for 5G networks even though, by most accounts, it is the clear technological leader. In March Berlin was told that Washington “wouldn’t be able to keep intelligence and other information sharing at their current level” if Chinese companies participated in the country’s 5G network. As of now, Berlin has not decided one way or the other (September is apparently the decision point). London, on the other hand, which had agreed to let Huawei in, reversed its decision, it is reported, when Trump threatened to cut intelligence and trade. So one can imagine what pressures are being brought on Berlin.
Berlin was very involved in negotiating the nuclear agreement with Tehran – the JCPOA – and was rather stunned when Washington pulled out of it. German Chancellor Merkel acknowledged that there wasn’t much Europe could do about it: but added that it “must strengthen them [its capabilities] for the future“. When Washington forced the SWIFT system to disconnect from Iran, thereby blocking bank-to-bank transactions, Berlin, Paris and London devised an alternate system called INSTEX. But, despite big intentions, it has apparently been used only once – in a small medical supplies transaction in March.
Thus far, Berlin’s resistance to Washington’s diktats has not amounted to much but on the third case it has been defiant from the start. Germany has been buying hydrocarbons from the east for some time and it is significant that, throughout the Cold War, when the USSR and Germany were enemies, the supply never faltered. And the reason is not hard to understand: Berlin wants the energy and Moscow wants the money; it’s a mutual dependence. The dependence can be exaggerated: a BBC piece calculated two years ago that Germany got about 60% of its gas from Russia but that only about 20% of Germany’s energy came from gas: a total of 12%. But it is very likely that that 12% will grow in the future and Russian supply will become more important to Germany. On the other hand, while it is happy to get the business, given the limitless demand from China, Russia could give up the European market if it had to. But, at present, it remains a mutually beneficial trade.
Given the problems of gas transit through Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic was built and began operation in 2011. As demand and the unreliability of Ukrainian politics grew, a second undersea pipeline, Nord Stream 2, began to be constructed. It was nearing completion when Washington imposed sanctions and the Swiss company that was laying the pipe quit the job. A Russian pipe-laying ship appeared and the work continues. Meanwhile Washington redoubles its efforts to force a stop. Ostensibly Washington argues security concerns – making the not-unreasonable argument that while Germany talks about the “Russian threat” it nevertheless buys energy from Russia: which is it? dangerous or reliable? Many people, on the other hand, believe that the true motive is to compel Germany to buy LNG from the USA; or “freedom gas” as they like to call it. This passage deserves to be pondered
LNG is significantly more expensive than pipeline gas from Russia and Norway, which are currently the two main exporters of gas to Europe. But some EU countries – chiefly Poland and the Baltic states – are ready to pay a premium in order to diversify their supplies. Bulgaria, which is currently 100% reliant on Russian gas, said it was ready to import LNG from the US if the price was competitive, suggesting a $1 billion US fund could be used to bring the price down. But Perry dismissed any suggestion that the US government would interfere on pricing, saying it was up to the companies involved to sign export and import deals.
Freedom isn’t free, as they say.
In July the US Congress added to the military funding bill an amendment expanding sanctions in connection with Nord Stream 2 to include any entity that assists the completion of the pipeline. Which brings us to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. This extremely open-ended bill arrogates to Washington the right to 1) declare this or that country an “adversary” 2) sanction anyone or anything that deals with it, or deals with those who deal with it and so on. Eventually, virtually every entity on the planet could be subject to sanctions (except, of course, the USA itself which permits itself to buy rocket engines or oil from “adversary” Russia). In short, if you don’t freely choose to buy our “freedom gas”, we’ll force you to. The latest from US Secretary of State Pompeo is: “We will do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline doesn’t threaten Europe” (the pretext of security again). Berlin has re-stated its determination to continue with it. 24 EU countries have issued a démarche to Washington protesting this attempt at extraterritorial sanctions. The convenient “poisoning” of Navalniy is being boomed as reason for Berlin to obey Washington’s diktat. This far Merkel says the two should not be linked. But the pressure will only grow.
Another of Trump’s oft-stated themes is that the US is paying to defend countries that are rich enough to defend themselves. NATO agreed some years ago that its members should commit 2% of governmental spending to defence. Few have achieved this and Germany least of all – 2019’s spending was about 1.2%; the undertaking to raise it to 1.5% by 2024 will probably not be fulfilled. Presumably as a consequence, or because he imagines he’s punishing Germany for its contumacy, Trump has ordered 12,000 troops to be removed from Germany. It is significant that most Germans are pretty comfortable with that reduction; about a quarter want them all gone. Which suggests that Germans are not as enthusiastic about their connection with the USA as their governments have been and so one may speculate that a post-Merkel Chancellor might be prepared to act on this indifference and cut the ties.
Iran is on Washington’s “adversary list” and Washington is determined to break it. Having walked out of the JCPOA, Washington is now trying to get the other signatories to impose sanctions in it for allegedly breaking the deal. This ukase is proving to be another point of disagreement and Paris, London and Berlin have refused to join in this effort stating that they remain committed to the agreement; in Pompeo’s chiaroscuric universe this was “aligning themselves with the Ayatollahs“. This failure followed another at the UNSC a week earlier. Again, the knot is not severed but it is weakened as the US Secretary of State comes ever closer to accusing Washington’s principal allies of being “adversaries” and they refuse obedience.
And so we can see that the Trump Administration is stamping around the room, smashing the furniture, brusquely ordering its allies to do as they’re told or else. One could hardly find a better exponent of this in-your-face style than “we lied, we cheated, we stole” Mike Pompeo. If your object were to outrage allies so much that they quit themselves, he’s ideal. Washington’s demands, stripped of the highfalutin accompanying rhetoric of freedom, are: join its sanctions against China and Iran; buy its gas; buy its weapons; if not, risk being declared “adversaries” in a sanctions war. Germany is defiant on Huawei, Iran, Nord Stream and weaponry; much of Europe is as well and Berlin’s example will have much effect on the others.
Point-blank demands to instantly fall in with Washington’s latest scheme is certainly no way to treat allies. But is this part of a clever strategy to get them to cut the “Gordian Knot of entanglements” themselves or just America-firstism stripped of politesse? Some see an intention here:
Even The Economist, that reliable indicator of the mean sea level of conventional opinion, wonders:
But it is only under President Donald Trump that America has used its powers routinely and to their full extent, by engaging in financial warfare. The results have been awe-inspiring and shocking. They have in turn prompted other countries to seek to break free of American financial hegemony.
A year ago French President Macron said Europe could no longer count on American defence. German Chancellor Merkel at first disagreed, but as Berlin’s struggles with Washington intensify, now sounds closer to Macron’s position. Just words to be sure, but evolving words.
If Trump gets a second term (the better bet at this moment, I believe) these words may become actions. At least one calculation assesses that the sanction wars have cost the EU more than Russia and very much more than the USA which has carefully exempted itself. Many Europeans must be coming to appreciate that there is more cost than gain in the relationship. (Which, of course, explains the rolling sequence of anti-Russian and anti-Chinese stories calculated to frighten them back into line.) As the slang phrase has it, the Trump Administration is saying “my way or the highway”. The Europeans are certainly big enough to set off on the highway by themselves.
(In response to question from Sputnik about Washington’s intention to leave the Open Skies Treaty)
The ABM Treaty and the CFE Treaty were already dead and the Trump Administration seems to be determined to kill off every remaining Cold War arms control Treaty. The Open Skies is just the latest. Russia will, of course, be blamed: it’s been “cheating“.
What’s driving this? I suspect it’s the post Cold War triumphalism that we have seen in every previous administration: We won, we’re Number One, suck it up Russia, you’re unimportant. The difference is that the Trump Administration makes no attempt to sugar-coat.
The irony of course is that the whole thing was President Eisenhower’s idea in the first place.
More of Washington’s short-term gain for long-term pain.
Answer to question from Sputnik
Three pretty likely consequences: Washington has begun its last foreign war and Trump’s future is in Tehran’s hands. Iran’s reaction will completely surprise Washington for the simple reason that smart people are smarter than stupid arrogant ignorant people.
Russia Observer 