andrewprlevi.bsky.social
▫️Technology investor, former diplomat and corporate executive▫️“Top” New York Times▫️“Leading” Der Spiegel▫️“Senior” BBC▫️“Valued” Financial Times▫️“Persona non grata” Vladimir Putin▫️
760 posts
2,202 followers
862 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Poor old Hitler didn’t stand a chance 🙂
You’re right, of course. Every era has its methods of manipulation. Mass hysteria and demagoguery didn’t start with Facebook.
comment in response to
post
Correction: in post 10 “FCC wealth” should just read “wealth”. Typo. Apologies.
comment in response to
post
For sure, some tech bros’ products, for all the positive features, are causing problems.
Missiles, bombs, control of the US Treasury, trashing the international structures which underpin the security, prosperity and well-being of billions …
… are much bigger ones.
Existential, in fact. /11. End
comment in response to
post
What really drives Trump is ethno-nationalism, the inferiority complex his father caused in him, and a desire for power and FCC wealth.
These align well with Putin (and Xi).
The intention is a global carve up.
One in which anyone who isn’t at the table is on the menu. /10.
comment in response to
post
Forget about “transactional deal making”. (In any case he’s incredibly bad at it: by some accounts if Trump had simply invested the fortune he inherited from his father in the stock market he’d be a real player among the billionaire class, multiples wealthier than he actually is). /9.
comment in response to
post
Instead, think of Trump and Putin as kindred spirits.
Not identical, of course.
Trump judges that a friendly modus vivendi with Putin is in his personal interest. And his personal interest - I don’t think this is a state secret - is what motivates him. /8.
comment in response to
post
Some suggest Trump became a KGB asset in the 1980s, and/or (“Steele dossier”) that Putin’s people compromised him and have been controlling him ever since.
These things are possible, but by no means certain, based on openly available sources.
They’re unnecessary to explain Trump’s behaviour. /7.
comment in response to
post
Trump is in the same position as Putin. It has been the almost unavoidable fate of many a dictator over the years.
Such people reach a point where they can no longer afford not to be in power.
Because their liberty and, often, life are at stake. /6.
comment in response to
post
And those who oppose demagogues, in support of decency and humanity, have to master the available techniques and technologies even better.
Stop whining and start winning, in other words.
Nor is the current situation a result of the mythical Trump penchant for “transactional” deals. /5.
comment in response to
post
Of course to be successful, demagogues have to master the communications technology of their era.
Whether it’s word of mouth, moveable type, books and pamphlets, newspapers, seminars and mass meetings (or “re-education camps”), radio, TV, whatever … /4.
comment in response to
post
The 30 Years War wasn’t turbocharged by a deluge of audiovisual excrement from a “libertarian” former “comedian” who fried his brain during Covid, amplified by a drugged-up, self-pitying, self-radicalised, Ponzi-scheme-ultra-wealthy ignoramus.
We’re back at 1618 now.
Enough. /3.
comment in response to
post
The 1848 revolutions in Europe didn’t sweep the continent by digital algorithm.
The French Revolution and the Terror weren’t a product of Truth Social or Infowars. /2.
comment in response to
post
See also:
bsky.app/profile/hele...
comment in response to
post
Could be. Provided the USA wants to sell it to Europe. And can be relied upon to partner with Europe for the longer term in relation to that equipment, which will require access to the US defence-industrial base to support it in war-fighting condition.
comment in response to
post
Of course. And they would have.
On the other hand if Europe had equipped itself with defence resources on a scale appropriate to the level of actual & emerging threat from Russia - obvious for at least a decade (I’d say two) - we’d be fine. And no US administration would have objected.
So act now.
comment in response to
post
Understood.
Let’s see what happens when (presumably) this comes to court.
comment in response to
post
But the order is plainly illegal, isn’t it?
comment in response to
post
For information, the Trump figure is taken from Project 538’s latest average (not just from one poll): see attached.
comment in response to
post
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m as worried as (I think) you are.
No comments will ever be widely interpreted in a particular way unless that interpretation is widely acknowledged (obviously). Often it takes people to point something out. I’m pointing it out. The reactions are interesting!
comment in response to
post
He had 4 years to ensure delivery of the really easy deal he says was always available to prevent what he himself describes as a really horrible war.
By his own account, he failed.
Bigly.
The fact that no such deal was ever available is beside the point.
He says, emphatically, it was. /5. End
comment in response to
post
What’s more interesting is how weak & foolish his own claim makes him look to anyone -potentially including many millions of semi-reluctant Trump voters & non-voters, & some US senators & House representatives - casting a cursory glance at the account he’s propagating. /4.
comment in response to
post
(There’s a contradiction right there. But no matter).
And because Biden was “terrible” & “incompetent”, alongside alleged Ukrainian failings, the deal didn’t happen.
I don’t care much whether Trump believes all that (it matters somewhat, & I’m inclined to think he does believe this narrative). /3.
comment in response to
post
To the extent his assertions make any sense, he’s saying Ukraine’s foolishness in not taking the appropriate action (doing the “deal”) allowed a war to start which wouldn’t otherwise have.
He’s also saying it takes the right US president (him) to intervene to make the necessary deal happen. /2.
comment in response to
post
What he says is that Ukraine should have done a deal. It would have been an easy deal. If he had been president that deal would have been done. The reason there has been war is because the deal wasn’t done.
That’s what he “means” when he says “they [Ukraine] shouldn’t have ‘started it’”. /1.
comment in response to
post
I might be.
But my point is a different one: statements which make him look obviously weak or foolish to Americans who might otherwise be reluctantly supportive (maybe 30 million voters, a few US senators & more than a few members of the House) erode his ability to wield power in the USA.
comment in response to
post
Ramping up is the point. I don’t think it’s simple or quick. But it of course depends in part on the scale of what’s needed, on the material and human resources available (or which can be procured somehow), & ultimately irreducible timescales required to construct/ commission etc.
comment in response to
post
Also the defence industrial capacity … somewhere.
comment in response to
post
Setting aside the merits or otherwise of whatever deal Trump believes would have been delivered under his watch, if only he had been president, there’s a glaring problem with his logic.
He was, in fact, US president.
From January 2017 to January 2021.
No deal was done on his watch.
Why? /5. End
comment in response to
post
The implication seems to be of some sort of Ukrainian territorial concession to Russia, presumably either before the 2014 invasion of Crimea or, failing that, between 2014 & 2022. Trump says if he had been president the deal would have been done & war (anyway in 2022) averted. /4.
comment in response to
post
This emerges from a claim a little earlier in Trump’s presentation, in which he says there should have been a deal, & suggests that it would have been a very easy deal to make, to avoid war. Ukraine’s “fault” comes from failing to make a deal. /3.
comment in response to
post
The full Trump press conference from yesterday is worth watching from start to finish. Link below.
The claim which has made most headlines is that Ukraine “shouldn’t have started it” three years ago (i.e. the Russian invasion of February 2022). /2.
www.youtube.com/live/rYX4zxo...
comment in response to
post
Yes. Financially that’s in principle easy. Materially (weaponry in particular) it’s harder: it can be done, but I’m not sure multilateral/EU decision making can achieve it, not in a hurry & at scale anyway. So, a few key countries will probably have to make it happen, at least in the immediate term.
comment in response to
post
Well, look at it the other way around.
The EU/EEA is an economic superpower, by size. (+UK even more so).
It can concert political action, sometimes quickly.
EU+UK has significant military power, including nuclear.
Europe can make a difference. To make a decisive one requires a major upgrade.
comment in response to
post
It is when you back your economic size with (1) great military power, (2) ability to concert political decision making in a timely, effective manner &, preferably, (3) plentiful natural resources.
The EU is economically huge. It has neglected (1), struggles with (2), & could do with more of (3).
comment in response to
post
Exceptionally depressing.
comment in response to
post
In a European context we’ve had a few: the betrayal of East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, East Germany again in 1961 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Without wishing to be overly cynical, I think a big difference this time is that “we” now feel it might next be “us”.
comment in response to
post
Get used to it.
This is what he has been for 25 years as Russian president.
No lie, hypocrisy or psychological projection too brazen.
No mark in the West lacking sufficient greed, anxiety or stupidity to fall for it.
Time after time.
After time.
comment in response to
post
Probably. But we live in unusual times. It’d be really useful to know. I assume the administration/ GOP have their own polling data, which at least in part guides their actions …
comment in response to
post
But the poll isn’t after “a month”. The field work was done between 27 January and 1 February.
Is there something more up to date available? So much has happened in February already …
comment in response to
post
Precisely.
And if, as some do, one thinks 10% is an overestimate, OK: if it’s 5%, 6% or whatever, that’s still transformational and just underlines the point that we can do it, we must do it, and the time is now.