I’m assuming that on the scale and resources of a great power, there’s nothing really stopping one from just nuking all potential adversaries in a MAD scenario (whether directly at war or not) to deter against this exact situation. That’s why the US and Russia each have thousands of nukes, and why China is also aiming to get over a thousand. Things like international norms or plausible deniability probably fall by the wayside in an existential conflict.
At the very least, I think this could further radicalise a significant amount of people, and wasn’t there this gentleman who mentioned how quantitative changes accumulate into qualitative change?
Might be cope, but isn’t the empire being a bit too hasty? Even the blandest vote blue anti-violence liberal hates ICE, and there isn’t a long-standing propaganda pipeline to sanctify ICE compared to the police or the military. Feels like the entire organisation is going to be politically toxic to all but the hardcore MAGA types.
Honestly, kind of. Turkey-Israeli tensions are pretty high right now, and the Turks probably don’t see NATO as a reliable backstop against Israel. For the Saudis, they are also dealing with deteriorating relations with the UAE, which incidentally have been getting quite chummy with Israel.
I think this also reflects Trump’s contempt for the EU. Compared to the annexation of Greenland, the operations you mentioned were far more limited in scope, and had little impact on the broader strategic landscape. To invade and occupy the world’s biggest island (albeit sparsely inhabited) has significant, lasting consequences on a global scale that his prior military actions hadn’t.
Given that Trump seems genuinely averse to entangling his forces too deeply, it’s pretty clear he believes the EU to be as incapable, if not even less so, as countries like Iran or Venezuela.