Commenter Archive

Comments by Hartmut*

On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff

bc and GFTNC, thank you for your explanations.

TBH, I can't make sense of any of this mess. It's utterly unclear who exactly is driving the bus on our end. Or what their motivations are.

Putin wants Ukraine absorbed into Russia. Ukraine doesn't want to be absorbed into Russia. The UK and EU very much do not want the conflict to expand.

What do we want? Who is the "we" that is deciding?

"

Those other debts weren’t being enforced by the Russian Mafia.

Doesn'tneed to involve the Russiab mafia. The Russian government has demonstrated its ability to conduct its own enforcement operations around the globe.

"

You seem to think that Trump wouldn’t just walk away from his debts, in spite of all past evidence.

Those other debts weren't being enforced by the Russian Mafia.

"

"Trump will go with whatever end game in Ukraine allows his family to continue to service Trump Organization debts that are held by Russian entities"

You seem to think that Trump wouldn't just walk away from his debts, in spite of all past evidence.

"

So the Department of Defense (which Pete Dawg wants to be called the Department of War because the packing penis wasn't fooling anyone) has now declared that they are investigating Sen. Mark Kelly because Kelly had the temerity to remind US military service people, past and present, that they have a duty to uphold the Constitution which supersedes their duty to follow any order that would violate the Constitution.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/24/nx-s1-5619314/pentagon-mark-kelly-trump-hegseth-military

You, know, keeping that oath that they swore when they joined the service.

And on social media the Ancient Orange One is calling Kelly et al's statement a "clear act of sedition."

This from the same merry band of miscreants who commuted Stuart Rhodes' federal sentence for having committed Seditious Conspiracy during the January 6 insurrection - while leading a group that called themselves the Oath Keepers.

So Kelly is being investigated for warning service people that if they violate the law and the constitution, they will end up a convicted felon like Rhodes.

They are going to keep pushing until there is a confrontation. And then they will push some more.

Do not yield.

"

Trump will go with whatever end game in Ukraine allows his family to continue to service Trump Organization debts that are held by Russian entities. Without that, the family fortunes all go to shit.

The same is probably true for Saudi Arabia and Trump at this point.

It's not just about making money, it's also about whose money is actually backing all of those big splashy projects that they put the family name on.

"

IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.

I agree with this. And in fact, if you ignore the noise/chaos around Trump's conflicting messaging (like the recent couple of days), the consistent trend is that he continues to imply (or worse) that he will pull back unless Ukraine gives in to Russian demands with a side order of servile and performative gratitude to him. This has now happened in almost exactly the same way 3 or 4 times - including messaging that "it's going well", "we're making real progress" etc etc, until Putin pulls the plug. And then it starts all over again, including ongoing destruction and death in Ukraine, until the next Trump-initiated "diplomacy" which results in essentially the same suggested settlement.

"

russell:

How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.

Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.

"

One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO

Since there is nothing in it for Trump personally, it's hard to credit him with caring about whether they step up. He may complain about it, but then he complains about anything and everything. Actually doing anything is rare.

As for "getting NATO members to pay their fair share", it's hard to see a valid complaint from the US on that. The one and only time that NATO has invoked its mutual defense clause was when the Europeans stepped up to support the US in Afghanistan. They stepped up to support us! Seems to me we've got no complaint.

The European members of NATO have not increased their defense spending in response to anything Trump has done. If you must credit anyone, "credit" Putin.

"

Charles, you amaze me (not).

"

I’m well aware that not everyone here thinks kindly of James Carville, but I’m betting that nonetheless few will disagree with the extract above.

I disagree with all of it.

On “Pop!

but at the rate those data centers will swallow up water and warm the planet

doubling compute capacity every 6 months is a hell of a rate.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/11/google-tells-employees-it-must-double-capacity-every-6-months-to-meet-ai-demand/

On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff

"Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin"

How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.

"My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars."

If you will pardon my language, my take on Trump is that he has no f****ing idea what he's doing, other than finding ways to make money for himself, his family, and a close circle of already obscenely wealthy people.

In terms of actual governance, I think he's basically making it up as he goes along.

He wants to make a lot of money, he wants to be adored, and he wants to punish people who aren't nice to him (as he sees it). If there's more to him than that, I'm not seeing it.

"

I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.

I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.

My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.

Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/

Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.

"

Perhaps someone here can explain something to me. Trump says Ukraine must accept the Russian-written "peace proposal or "risk losing US support. So, let's assume a counterfactual: Ukraine accepts the proposal. What good is US support supposed to do them, even assuming it lasts more than milliseconds beyong Russia moving it's troops forward?

It looks to me that the actual choice is between losing US support or losing US support. The only difference is between losing a bunch of territory at the same time or not.

"

With all this rage, we must also have a bold, simple policy plan — one that every American can understand. In the richest country in the history of our planet, we should not fear raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour, which had a 74 percent approval rating in 2023. We should not fear an America with free public college tuition, which 63 percent of U.S. adults favored in a 2021 poll. When 62 percent of Americans say their electricity or gas bills have increased in the past year and 80 percent feel powerless to control their utility costs, we should not fear the idea of expanding rural broadband as a public utility. Or when 70 percent of Americans say raising children is too expensive, we should not fear making universal child care a public good. And darn it, we should not fear that running on a platform of seismic economic scale will cost us a general election. We’ve already lost enough of them by being afraid to try. The era of half-baked political policy is over.

I'm well aware that not everyone here thinks kindly of James Carville, but I'm betting that nonetheless few will disagree with the extract above. Here's the whole thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/opinion/democrats-platform-economic-rage.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3k8.RLeA.wVApkzjlRXhM&smid=url-share

On “Shabana burns the cakes

I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I’ve done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren’t deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here. 

It's true that those who have moved tend to have shallower roots than those who have lived somewhere for a lifetime. And also, it's not surprising that some are better than others at developing new roots when they move. But I would point out that, while you feel your new roots are shallow, you are hardly someone who is perpetually moving. (I'd put the threshold for "perpetually moving"/rootless at relocating every couple of years or less.)

I acknowledge that my perspective is probably skewed by my personal experience. The US is called "a nation of immigrants" (suck eggs, Steven Miller!) for a reason. And California is a bit extreme, even for the US.

Growing up, I lived in a little farm town, just starting to evolve into a suburb. When my parents moved here, after WW II, the population was under 500. By the time I graduated high school, my graduating class was around 500. For all that there were a couple of families who had been here for a century, pretty much everybody in town was from somewhere else. Often, the kids in my classes had moved a couple of times already. Today, the town is up to nearly 50,000.

That sort of thing continues. I'm in the long time rooted category because, although I've lived in a half dozen different places over the years, they've all been within a hundred miles of here. But my family, my friends, my neighbors? All have moved or lived previously, far away. I've got a brother who, in his 20s and 30s, lived "in Europe" -- never settled anywhere for more than a couple of months, as far as I could tell. Definitely in the perpetually moving category.

On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir

Hartmut, no worries, It's complicated by the fact that Karp is a non-native speaker of German, so it would be difficult to know what is from the translator and what is from Karp's German. In the New Statesman podcast, they say that Habermas turned down Karp's request to be the second reader on his dissertation because he didn't think that Karp's German was good enough, though softened that rejection by acknowledging that the ideas in the dissertation were probably difficult for native speakers of German to get across.

"

No guarantee that I will find the time to read it (let alone compare the German and English versions).
That Karp piece you quoted from the New Republic sounds like a Roman senator preparing the next 'imperial expansion by pure self-defense' (although to my knowledge Rome never used drug smuggling as a pretense. They'd have gone British Opium War style anyway.).

On “Pop!

Here's another piece that I ran across on NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/23/nx-s1-5615410/ai-bubble-nvidia-openai-revenue-bust-data-centers

The parts of this article that really had me shaking my head at these hubristic tech muppets were the reports of how much they were spending to build tech centers and how gormless the private equity pinheads are being in their rush to invest money in them.

And then we have this:

The tech firm makes an investment in the data center, outside investors put up most of the cash, then the special purpose vehicle borrows money to buy the chips that are inside the data centers. The tech company gets the benefit of the increased computing capacity but it doesn't weigh down the company's balance sheet with debt.

The return of the "special purpose vehicle" for financing. So very bubble.

I'd say we are better off investing in tulip bulbs, but at the rate those data centers will swallow up water and warm the planet, you'd never get those tulips to grow, and the Netherlands will be entirely underwater - just like all those mortgages were the last time we let the promise of easy money gull us.

On “Shabana burns the cakes

In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.

Is it really? I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I've done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren't deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here. And even for my wife, who is from Hokkaido, those roots aren't so deep. And certainly, those roots are shortened even for those who are from here, with cultural touchstones fading and replaced by consumption events. At some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

"

 “Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”

In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.

There were also those who, from necessity, picked up and moved, sometimes a very long way, before stopping and putting down new roots. (I am put in mind of a story I read long ago about a guy who moved from Europe, but having arrived in New York City, never went west of Ocean Parkway.)

I suppose you could make a case that, at least in the US since the middle of the last century, it became more common for entire families to pull up stakes and relocate multiple times. They put down roots serially though; they weren't really moving constantly.

The one thing I think has changed is that those who just keep moving are now able to form lasting connections online. Before, they were largely isolated. Being able to make lasting connections allows them to form communities. Just communities not based on geography. That makes them more visible.

I suppose

On “Shabana burns the cakes

GftNC, thanks!

I was struck by the close of that article, which was:

“Maybe the future is just participation, not belonging,” she mused. “Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”

On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff

I don’t think American voters, as a general rule, give a shit about what goes on outside of the borders, unless it is for the purposes of mythologizing

I think this is probably true. Although I suppose foreign affairs is only one of the ways an administration may behave dishonourably. January 6th was within the first Trump administration, and I guess was a sort of epitome of dishonourable behaviour. But it is debatable to what extent honour is even an applicable concept in the context of nations or administrations. Breaking promises and commitments, now, that's another matter, and can have serious practical repercussions.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.