The only reason I could parse through that truly amazing email is I worked with a teacher would would send similar (no really, quite similar) emails once a week or so to all staff in the middle of the night. It became the highlight of my week. I was sad when he retired.
Keep dancing, pony boy! I'd love to see this person on an ayahuasca trip.
She's either a shill or is totally delusional and I honestly don't know which one is correct. Donald Trump could shit his pants on live television and, without missing a beat, she'd say "Donald Trump is literally expelling the shit from government. This is what the working class coalition that elected him wants - the shit out of their lives and I for one appreciate his total honesty and, let's be real, vulnerability."
Might just be the horseshoe theory of politics makes for strange bedfellows. One that I have been noticing more is progressive support for Trump because of his willingness to go after the "deep state" especially things like the FBI.
I love Batya, but her take is insane. Never mind the fact that a ton of the money spent goes directly to American arms manufacturers, thereby supporting American industry. (Also, about 2/3 of Americans support Ukraine.)
Yes the ‘used and abused’ line. Give the fuck over Batya. In what universe is the USA ‘used and abused’?
I think a lot of commentators and quite a lot of Americans get a bit pissed off with people not taking US propaganda about their motives at all seriously. You’re the big imperial power. Just embrace it. If any state is doing a bit of ‘using and abusing’ then it’s always the richest one with the military nobody dares to seriously challenge. Don’t act like you’re doing anyone else a favour and remember that NATO was formed at the behest of the US for exactly the reasons John Bolton set out in his chat with Matt and Michael.
Didn't hear Bolton come up with any actual reasons why it continues to be principally for US interests. He just said it was because it is in US interests. But he didn't say what interests or how it supports them. So if you got that or you have an idea, please let me know. And then I'd like to know how that outweighs how it supports European interests, which are obvious on the face of things. Genuinely wondering,
Principally it has been used (unwisely) as a vehicle for US policy towards Russia. Mainly trying to undermine it. Never a great idea with a country that already has a gargantuan persecution complex and pretty open ambitions within what it considers to be its sphere of influence.
Secondary advantages are the ready-made US-compatible forces which can bolster US operations and capabilities around the world - see, eg, Afghanistan and Iraq, forward deployed assets that enable swift US power projection from bases in Europe, a very handy accounting justification for cost offsets because NATO has to buy a lot of kit from US companies to satisfy compatibility requirements and even the main platforms are pushed very hard from the US - see, eg, the F35 programme. And finally it allows the US to exert considerable control over the foreign policy of member states. It simply doesn’t countenance any member truly going it alone without sanction from Washington and this is well understood.
Edited to add - I’m not saying all of this is necessarily good, in fact a lot of it has been outright calamitous, not least for the ordinary citizens of Ukraine. I also don’t think Americans should be obliged to subsidise anyone else’s defence. I’m not even convinced that it has much ongoing utility to the ordinary citizens of the US. What is galling to ordinary Europeans is for the US state, albeit because of a change in administration, to now run the argument that NATO is a European undertaking that has led the United States astray.
Vehicle for US policy re: Russia. Doesn't Europe use the USA as a vehicle re: Russia far more than the reverse? Isn't this the very reason so many are in a titter re: the "biggest threat to Europe" speech? So this is a net benefit to Europe.
Ready-made US-compatible force. The US doesn't really need these forces, nor are they meaningful. 68% of the casualties in Afghanistan were borne by the US despite having roughly equal population to that of NATO-Europe, which suffered 35% compared to the US. The differences in spending were far greater - the US spent over $2 trillion - the UK $30 billion, Germany $19 billion. That's a rounding error. The ability for Europe to contribute today to such war efforts militarily or financially are at this point depleted and poorly maintained. They can't get anywhere meaningfully without US assistance. Combined, Europe doesn't field blue-water navies sufficient to defend Europe, much less provide any meaningful strategic capabilities globally. None of them have strategic airlift capability, strategic bombing capabilities, air defense, space and cyber - forget about it. Almost all of that is provided by the US.
The forward-deployed bases are a benefit, but what has been the cost? Those bases could (and should) be elsewhere - although admittedly less stable places. When the first post-Cold War crisis erupted in Europe, the West sat and watched until the US had to take the lead, from those bases. That benefited Europe, not the US, who truly had no strategic interests in the Balkans relative to Europe. Right now all of Western Europe benefits by having US troops in Poland and the Baltics, not the other way around. The US has 3 combat brigades deployed in Eastern Europe - the old West? Zero. The US benefits only by providing stability to Europe - which could be provided by Europe. But instead the US pays for it. How does the European side of NATO stabilize the Western Hemisphere? It doesn't. The US handles that single-handedly, and Europe is in no position to lend help.
Procurement - well, yes, Europe buys much from the US, because Europe hasn't done the investment in R&D or defense spending to sustain a defense industry. But it's not like you look at US kit and discover that it's all made by American companies. Far from it. Arguably, the US defense budget does more to keep the European industry afloat, not the other way around. Given that the US is projected to field more than 3 times the number of 5th generation fighters than all of Europe combined (with the enhanced projections that Europe has never lived up to), how would you expect that to operate? And BAE is a part of that program anyway - not like Europe was cut out. Remember - our GDPs are roughly the same. 3 times more! (likely 4 to 5 in reality).
So with roughly equivalent populations and GDP, the US gets a more stabile Europe, forward-deployed bases, increased consumption for its defense industry, and the lion's share of cost and responsibility for the defense of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, while receiving little support within 3/4ths of the globe. Europe gets protected shipping lanes, assistance in defense of their continent, reduced R&D, strategic defense, and a 2-1 export/import advantage, and still has a seat (several seats) at the global table despite providing next-to-no strategic assets or support for the rest of the globe, much less Europe.
Does that seem like a fair trade? Would you sustain that deal? And why would you get mad at someone who says, "Enough"? And why act like we just started saying it? We've been saying it since Sarajevo - it's just finally come to a head because not only has Europe done nothing to fix it for 33 years, they've done less. And China looms.
If the argument is that NATO is a collective undertaking, not a European defense organization, then when is a single European nation going to develop the capability to operate outside of Europe? The US needs to shift its focus elsewhere - presumably without European help.
I don’t believe there is much anger at the US saying it doesn’t want to commit resources in Europe.
The anger is at the US, which actually did a great deal to undermine European defence manufacturing- see TSR2 and the F104 debacles as examples - claiming to have been pursuing the Truman doctrine out of a sense of charity when it was a clear requirement of the doctrine itself that the US should only do so to further the US national interest. You also say yourself that the US benefits from stability in Europe.
Much of what you are criticising would be better founded if there was actually a United States of Europe. But it isn’t a singular entity regardless of the best efforts of a few egomaniacal lunatics in each of those States over the past few decades. There cannot be a single defence budget or foreign policy per the United States so using the cumulative GDP of Europe and comparing it to the sole GDP of the USA doesn’t really work. Try the same exercise with some other geographically proximate states elsewhere; why doesn’t South American pay more for its defence? Those states are all right next to each other after all and with a couple of exceptions they all speak the same language so that’s going one better than Europe.
The US has chosen to develop a military so vast that even its own people have (finally) begun to question what, or whom, on earth it is actually guarding against? It has maintained a strategy of being able to fight two conventional wars simultaneously, anywhere. That made more sense before the collapse of the Soviet Bloc but has been less rational in the last 30 years. The only explanation is that the US sees, or has seen, an economic advantage in maintaining such a large military. The problem, of course, is that war is very good for a lot of businesses. It’s good for the MIC if there is the occasional demonstration of the continuing need for their products too. And it lines a lot of pockets in all the right places to ensure that there really is a low level ‘forever war’, a perpetual non-Apocalyptic crisis. It is this group of ghouls who have effectively contrived to collide with the undoubted expansionist ambitions of Russia.
But even many Americans who recognise the inherent corruption of the MIC, and I assume you are amongst that group, are still wedded to the idea of spending immense sums on war fighting capabilities per your point about the procurement of 5th Gen combat aircraft. You have eleven nuclear aircraft carriers with more aircraft per ship than most other countries entire air forces. Each carrier is accompanied by sufficient shipborne firepower to handily eliminate the fleet of 99% of the world’s Navies within minutes. The US nuclear arsenal has enough warheads to ensure that after the first salvo against China, Russia or anywhere else, the remainder would do nothing but bounce dust. None of that is funded to defend Europe or anyone else. It exists to project overwhelming power on a global scale and impose your will on whichever people might be so bold as to threaten your economy and, of course, to keep defence contractors share prices up and millions of Americans in jobs. Nobody else made the US do this. Not Europe, nor even opponents like China and Russia. You weren’t duped. You weren’t engaged in philanthropy. You were paying to be the dominant imperial power. I don’t think anyone could seriously blame American citizens for not wanting to pay for all of this. But the truth is that the expenditure has occurred at the behest of the people they have returned to office since 1945.
Finally, unless you think there should be a United States of Europe with a military capability developed to the point that it becomes a de facto competitor to the United States - and history shows that arms races and the pursuit of resources to enable them rarely end peacefully- then I’m not sure how, or why, you think anyone should try to match your defence expenditure and join you in whatever fights you choose to pick against…well who knows, because apparently it’s not Russia. China?
With all the shit going on in the WH these days, I wonder, where is Suzie Wiles? We were told when Trump appointed her CoS that she would rule with an iron fist and would tolerate no shit.
Is she even alive? Does she even exist? Is there an AI construct sitting at her desk?
I voted None of the Above and I live in the most electorally significant state (PA) so I own none of this, as I hated all the candidates. But this is awful. What a shitshow.
What a stupid question from Philip. Can you believe it? Philip is a total loser who doesn't know what they're talking about. Nasty person, very low IQ. But let me tell you about my friend Jim - great guy, very successful. He owns this beautiful golf course in Florida. Speaking of Florida, the alligators there are getting bigger, folks. Huge! Almost as big as the crowds at my rallies. Nobody draws crowds like Trump, believe me. The losers. They ask a lot of dumb questions, folks. It's embarrassing, really
The firehose is really all I ever need and I appreciate the work you do putting it together each week Matt. 3 not 10 new sign-ups smdh, I don't know why more people aren't pursuing you like they did the queens at the drag show I attended in Key West last week (that is with a fist full of dollars) to go NFC; the services you provide are arguably even more valuable than a tucked crotch in the face but I digress. Thanks for all the links and the indescribably beautiful email
Mike Solana often talks about building a giant Statue of Liberty, Freedom, or Some-Such in San Francisco Bay, to renew the American spirt as represented by our lovely Lady in New York. (Thank you, France). Rather than that famous sonnet by Emma Lazarus, the new West Coast statue should be adorned with this bit of poetry by our anonymous emailer.
--
And it's time for a cease fire in the culture war
Because if what I just heard was rhe product of multi racial multicultural America
we need to end this shit and star pursuing an exceptionalism that TRANSENDS any
one of us and is so great we are lucky to be a part of it
--
I literally shed a tear of American pride when I read this. It's gonna be a great weekend.
Did one of you send that email to yourselves?
The email is actually from the episode when Matt was too drunk to record
I'm no intellectual, but one thing I know for certain is that the writer of that email is nursing a banger of a hangover to this day. Oof.
Emailer deserves a pulitzer. 🥲
The only reason I could parse through that truly amazing email is I worked with a teacher would would send similar (no really, quite similar) emails once a week or so to all staff in the middle of the night. It became the highlight of my week. I was sad when he retired.
Keep dancing, pony boy! I'd love to see this person on an ayahuasca trip.
And what no one was expecting, the email writer is George Will and that's his latest column.
Wear a tie and a suit and you may go places.
I gave Batya a lot of benefit of the doubt but at this point, if I want state propaganda, I'll take it from the source. I don't need the middleman.
She's either a shill or is totally delusional and I honestly don't know which one is correct. Donald Trump could shit his pants on live television and, without missing a beat, she'd say "Donald Trump is literally expelling the shit from government. This is what the working class coalition that elected him wants - the shit out of their lives and I for one appreciate his total honesty and, let's be real, vulnerability."
No notes on what you just said. Chef's kiss.
Might just be the horseshoe theory of politics makes for strange bedfellows. One that I have been noticing more is progressive support for Trump because of his willingness to go after the "deep state" especially things like the FBI.
I love Batya, but her take is insane. Never mind the fact that a ton of the money spent goes directly to American arms manufacturers, thereby supporting American industry. (Also, about 2/3 of Americans support Ukraine.)
She was worse on Honestly. MAGA ChatGPT.
Yes the ‘used and abused’ line. Give the fuck over Batya. In what universe is the USA ‘used and abused’?
I think a lot of commentators and quite a lot of Americans get a bit pissed off with people not taking US propaganda about their motives at all seriously. You’re the big imperial power. Just embrace it. If any state is doing a bit of ‘using and abusing’ then it’s always the richest one with the military nobody dares to seriously challenge. Don’t act like you’re doing anyone else a favour and remember that NATO was formed at the behest of the US for exactly the reasons John Bolton set out in his chat with Matt and Michael.
Didn't hear Bolton come up with any actual reasons why it continues to be principally for US interests. He just said it was because it is in US interests. But he didn't say what interests or how it supports them. So if you got that or you have an idea, please let me know. And then I'd like to know how that outweighs how it supports European interests, which are obvious on the face of things. Genuinely wondering,
Principally it has been used (unwisely) as a vehicle for US policy towards Russia. Mainly trying to undermine it. Never a great idea with a country that already has a gargantuan persecution complex and pretty open ambitions within what it considers to be its sphere of influence.
Secondary advantages are the ready-made US-compatible forces which can bolster US operations and capabilities around the world - see, eg, Afghanistan and Iraq, forward deployed assets that enable swift US power projection from bases in Europe, a very handy accounting justification for cost offsets because NATO has to buy a lot of kit from US companies to satisfy compatibility requirements and even the main platforms are pushed very hard from the US - see, eg, the F35 programme. And finally it allows the US to exert considerable control over the foreign policy of member states. It simply doesn’t countenance any member truly going it alone without sanction from Washington and this is well understood.
Edited to add - I’m not saying all of this is necessarily good, in fact a lot of it has been outright calamitous, not least for the ordinary citizens of Ukraine. I also don’t think Americans should be obliged to subsidise anyone else’s defence. I’m not even convinced that it has much ongoing utility to the ordinary citizens of the US. What is galling to ordinary Europeans is for the US state, albeit because of a change in administration, to now run the argument that NATO is a European undertaking that has led the United States astray.
OK, thank you, let me take those one at a time.
Vehicle for US policy re: Russia. Doesn't Europe use the USA as a vehicle re: Russia far more than the reverse? Isn't this the very reason so many are in a titter re: the "biggest threat to Europe" speech? So this is a net benefit to Europe.
Ready-made US-compatible force. The US doesn't really need these forces, nor are they meaningful. 68% of the casualties in Afghanistan were borne by the US despite having roughly equal population to that of NATO-Europe, which suffered 35% compared to the US. The differences in spending were far greater - the US spent over $2 trillion - the UK $30 billion, Germany $19 billion. That's a rounding error. The ability for Europe to contribute today to such war efforts militarily or financially are at this point depleted and poorly maintained. They can't get anywhere meaningfully without US assistance. Combined, Europe doesn't field blue-water navies sufficient to defend Europe, much less provide any meaningful strategic capabilities globally. None of them have strategic airlift capability, strategic bombing capabilities, air defense, space and cyber - forget about it. Almost all of that is provided by the US.
The forward-deployed bases are a benefit, but what has been the cost? Those bases could (and should) be elsewhere - although admittedly less stable places. When the first post-Cold War crisis erupted in Europe, the West sat and watched until the US had to take the lead, from those bases. That benefited Europe, not the US, who truly had no strategic interests in the Balkans relative to Europe. Right now all of Western Europe benefits by having US troops in Poland and the Baltics, not the other way around. The US has 3 combat brigades deployed in Eastern Europe - the old West? Zero. The US benefits only by providing stability to Europe - which could be provided by Europe. But instead the US pays for it. How does the European side of NATO stabilize the Western Hemisphere? It doesn't. The US handles that single-handedly, and Europe is in no position to lend help.
Procurement - well, yes, Europe buys much from the US, because Europe hasn't done the investment in R&D or defense spending to sustain a defense industry. But it's not like you look at US kit and discover that it's all made by American companies. Far from it. Arguably, the US defense budget does more to keep the European industry afloat, not the other way around. Given that the US is projected to field more than 3 times the number of 5th generation fighters than all of Europe combined (with the enhanced projections that Europe has never lived up to), how would you expect that to operate? And BAE is a part of that program anyway - not like Europe was cut out. Remember - our GDPs are roughly the same. 3 times more! (likely 4 to 5 in reality).
So with roughly equivalent populations and GDP, the US gets a more stabile Europe, forward-deployed bases, increased consumption for its defense industry, and the lion's share of cost and responsibility for the defense of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, while receiving little support within 3/4ths of the globe. Europe gets protected shipping lanes, assistance in defense of their continent, reduced R&D, strategic defense, and a 2-1 export/import advantage, and still has a seat (several seats) at the global table despite providing next-to-no strategic assets or support for the rest of the globe, much less Europe.
Does that seem like a fair trade? Would you sustain that deal? And why would you get mad at someone who says, "Enough"? And why act like we just started saying it? We've been saying it since Sarajevo - it's just finally come to a head because not only has Europe done nothing to fix it for 33 years, they've done less. And China looms.
If the argument is that NATO is a collective undertaking, not a European defense organization, then when is a single European nation going to develop the capability to operate outside of Europe? The US needs to shift its focus elsewhere - presumably without European help.
I don’t believe there is much anger at the US saying it doesn’t want to commit resources in Europe.
The anger is at the US, which actually did a great deal to undermine European defence manufacturing- see TSR2 and the F104 debacles as examples - claiming to have been pursuing the Truman doctrine out of a sense of charity when it was a clear requirement of the doctrine itself that the US should only do so to further the US national interest. You also say yourself that the US benefits from stability in Europe.
Much of what you are criticising would be better founded if there was actually a United States of Europe. But it isn’t a singular entity regardless of the best efforts of a few egomaniacal lunatics in each of those States over the past few decades. There cannot be a single defence budget or foreign policy per the United States so using the cumulative GDP of Europe and comparing it to the sole GDP of the USA doesn’t really work. Try the same exercise with some other geographically proximate states elsewhere; why doesn’t South American pay more for its defence? Those states are all right next to each other after all and with a couple of exceptions they all speak the same language so that’s going one better than Europe.
The US has chosen to develop a military so vast that even its own people have (finally) begun to question what, or whom, on earth it is actually guarding against? It has maintained a strategy of being able to fight two conventional wars simultaneously, anywhere. That made more sense before the collapse of the Soviet Bloc but has been less rational in the last 30 years. The only explanation is that the US sees, or has seen, an economic advantage in maintaining such a large military. The problem, of course, is that war is very good for a lot of businesses. It’s good for the MIC if there is the occasional demonstration of the continuing need for their products too. And it lines a lot of pockets in all the right places to ensure that there really is a low level ‘forever war’, a perpetual non-Apocalyptic crisis. It is this group of ghouls who have effectively contrived to collide with the undoubted expansionist ambitions of Russia.
But even many Americans who recognise the inherent corruption of the MIC, and I assume you are amongst that group, are still wedded to the idea of spending immense sums on war fighting capabilities per your point about the procurement of 5th Gen combat aircraft. You have eleven nuclear aircraft carriers with more aircraft per ship than most other countries entire air forces. Each carrier is accompanied by sufficient shipborne firepower to handily eliminate the fleet of 99% of the world’s Navies within minutes. The US nuclear arsenal has enough warheads to ensure that after the first salvo against China, Russia or anywhere else, the remainder would do nothing but bounce dust. None of that is funded to defend Europe or anyone else. It exists to project overwhelming power on a global scale and impose your will on whichever people might be so bold as to threaten your economy and, of course, to keep defence contractors share prices up and millions of Americans in jobs. Nobody else made the US do this. Not Europe, nor even opponents like China and Russia. You weren’t duped. You weren’t engaged in philanthropy. You were paying to be the dominant imperial power. I don’t think anyone could seriously blame American citizens for not wanting to pay for all of this. But the truth is that the expenditure has occurred at the behest of the people they have returned to office since 1945.
Finally, unless you think there should be a United States of Europe with a military capability developed to the point that it becomes a de facto competitor to the United States - and history shows that arms races and the pursuit of resources to enable them rarely end peacefully- then I’m not sure how, or why, you think anyone should try to match your defence expenditure and join you in whatever fights you choose to pick against…well who knows, because apparently it’s not Russia. China?
"The abused American taxpayer" while calling for tariffs. It's baffling.
She had some real corkers on the most recently Honestly.
With all the shit going on in the WH these days, I wonder, where is Suzie Wiles? We were told when Trump appointed her CoS that she would rule with an iron fist and would tolerate no shit.
Is she even alive? Does she even exist? Is there an AI construct sitting at her desk?
I voted None of the Above and I live in the most electorally significant state (PA) so I own none of this, as I hated all the candidates. But this is awful. What a shitshow.
What a stupid question from Philip. Can you believe it? Philip is a total loser who doesn't know what they're talking about. Nasty person, very low IQ. But let me tell you about my friend Jim - great guy, very successful. He owns this beautiful golf course in Florida. Speaking of Florida, the alligators there are getting bigger, folks. Huge! Almost as big as the crowds at my rallies. Nobody draws crowds like Trump, believe me. The losers. They ask a lot of dumb questions, folks. It's embarrassing, really
SAD!
Matt, you’ve been had: Kmele wrote that email.
The spirit of that long drunken message was fantastic. The power of music, man
That email is the “Common Sense” of our time 🫡
The firehose is really all I ever need and I appreciate the work you do putting it together each week Matt. 3 not 10 new sign-ups smdh, I don't know why more people aren't pursuing you like they did the queens at the drag show I attended in Key West last week (that is with a fist full of dollars) to go NFC; the services you provide are arguably even more valuable than a tucked crotch in the face but I digress. Thanks for all the links and the indescribably beautiful email
I've never emailed the show, and now I know I don't have to. It's all been said. Bravo.
Mike Solana often talks about building a giant Statue of Liberty, Freedom, or Some-Such in San Francisco Bay, to renew the American spirt as represented by our lovely Lady in New York. (Thank you, France). Rather than that famous sonnet by Emma Lazarus, the new West Coast statue should be adorned with this bit of poetry by our anonymous emailer.
--
And it's time for a cease fire in the culture war
Because if what I just heard was rhe product of multi racial multicultural America
we need to end this shit and star pursuing an exceptionalism that TRANSENDS any
one of us and is so great we are lucky to be a part of it
--
I literally shed a tear of American pride when I read this. It's gonna be a great weekend.
This was Thaddeus Russell emailing wasn’t it.
Put that 10 year old TV show Matt won't shut up about in the blank space for Matt and Kmele.
And get well soon emailer! That made more morning.
I’m going to make “congratulations, ✨ bitch ✨” my text message alert sound