There's a palpable Cuban-missile-crisis-y feel to the present moment

 I think the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 is still considered the moment at which the world came closest to nuclear war. Maybe that's just because I live through it and remember grownups discussing it. I was alive for the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, which, in retrospect, was another moment when the danger level was pretty heightened, but I was an infant. We're finding out that we weren't all that far away from such a point of peril in Vietnam in 1968.

But in recent years, that hair-trigger tension level has abated:

For more than three decades after the end of the Cold War, the United States and its allies faced no serious nuclear threats.

But no sooner do Madelyn Creedon and Franklin Miller, writing at Foreign Affairs, assert as much, than they follow it with this splash of cold water:

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been rattling his nuclear saber in a manner reminiscent of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Chinese President Xi Jinping has directed a dramatic buildup of China’s nuclear arsenal, a project whose size and scope the recently retired commander of U.S. Strategic Command has described as “breathtaking.” The Russian and Chinese leaders have also signed a treaty of “friendship without limits.” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is supplying weapons and troops to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, and North Korea is improving its ability to strike both its neighbors and the U.S. homeland with nuclear weapons, as it demonstrated with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test launch on October 31.

Europe is particularly on edge.

The Nordic countries tell their citizens "prepare and we ain't foolin'":

On Monday, millions of pamphlets landed in Swedish homes eerily titled: "If Crisis or War Comes," while other nations issue their own chilling advice to fearful citizens.

Stockholm has warned of what they call the worsening security situation - otherwise known as Russia's bloody invasion of Ukraine - and urged Swedes to prepare for conflict.

Meanwhile neighbouring Finland have published its own chilling advice online to prepare "for incidents and crises".

In a scarily detailed section on military conflict, the digital brochure describes how the government and president would respond in the event of an armed attack.

The Finnish brochure stressed that its authorities are "well prepared for self defence".

Norwegians also received a pamphlet urging residents to know how to manage on their own for a week in the event of extreme weather - or war.

In summer, Denmark's emergency management agency put out a warning to Danish adults detailing the water, food and medicine necessary to get through three days of crisis.

Sweden and Finland recently gave up neutrality to join Nato after witnessing the atrocities Putin has unleashed in Ukraine since 2022.

Norway was a founding member of the Western defensive alliance on the other hand.

Germans, too:

Germans have been put on high alert for a potential World War 3 scenario with Russia following renewed threats of a nuclear strike from Vladimir Putin. The situation has escalated after US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia, which Moscow claims has already targeted a weapons warehouse in the Bryansk region.

Putin warned in September that if Western countries allow Ukraine to strike deep inside Russiawith their longer-range weapons, "it will mean that NATO countries, the US, and European countries are at war with Russia."

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has since stated that Russia poses not just a military but also a hybrid threat and that Europe needs to adopt a comprehensive approach to defence.Germany's Foreign Minister has also pledged that the country will not be "intimidated" by Putin, following revelations that Germany would serve as a NATO staging ground should the conflict escalate further.

According to a 1,000-page document titled 'Operationsplan Deutschland', Germany would host hundreds of thousands of troops from NATO countries and act as a logistics hub for dispatching military equipment, food, and medicine to the front lines. The German army is also advising civilians and businesses on how to safeguard infrastructure and prepare to defend the country against potential sabotage, drone attacks, and spying operations.

Germany is setting crisis plans into motion, assigning responsibilities for emergency actions and creating diesel stockpiles, following the lead of Scandinavian nations. Defence Minister Mr Pistorius announced on Tuesday that officials suspect sabotage caused damage to two undersea data cables in the Baltic Sea, one terminating in Germany, although evidence is yet to be found, reports the Mirror US.

Italy, Spain, Greece and the US have closed their Kyiv embassies for at least a day as Ukraine anticipates yet another brazen missile assault from Russia. 

Some bracing words from Sergey Markov:

The US has been given a chilling 'WW3 by Christmas' warning by pro-Putin spokesperson Sergey Markov.

Western allies, also including Britain and France, have taken a “big jump” towards a nuclear conflict by giving Ukraine permission to fire Western long-range missiles into Kremlin territory, Markov claims.

A regular Putin “mouthpiece”, Markov warned that the shock move by President Joe Biden could mean that Britons could be facing a Christmas in shelters.

But Putin lackeys routinely indulge in nuclear bluster, don't they?

Those in favour of the move have noted that the Kremlin and its mouthpieces in the state-controlled media and academia had threatened nuclear war every time the West had stepped up its support for Ukraine, including when it provided tanks, fighter jets and other sophisticated weapon systems.

However, Markov, currently the Director General of Russia's Institute for Political Studies, was convinced the move was different as it would mean that Western militaries would be directly involved in the conflict for the first time - Ukraine would require their assistance to use the precision guided missile systems.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4, he said: “My reaction [to the White House’s decision] was awful, I couldn't sleep well because I am just afraid nuclear war is coming.

“This decision of United States, Great Britain and France is not a step towards nuclear war it is a big jump to nuclear war, nuclear catastrophe."

What's the latest with Iran's nuclear ambitions? 

 Iran has defied international demands to rein in its nuclear program and has increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, according to a confidential report by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog seen Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said that as of Oct. 26, Iran has 182.3 kilograms (401.9 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%, an increase of 17.6 kilograms (38.8 pounds) since the last report in August.

Uranium enriched at 60% purity is just a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

The IAEA also estimated in its quarterly report that as of Oct. 26, Iran’s overall stockpile of enriched uranium stands at 6,604.4 kilograms (14,560 pounds), an increase of 852.6 kilograms (1,879.6 pounds) since August. Under the IAEA’s definition, around 42 kilograms (92.5 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60% purity is the amount at which creating one atomic weapon is theoretically possible — if the material is enriched further, to 90%.

The reports come at a critical time as Israel and Iran have traded missile attacks in recent months after more than a year of war in Gaza, which is governed by Hamas, a group supported by Iran.

It may be time to reassess the above-mentioned instances' status in the history of nuclear danger. Our present moment seems to offer enough to go around. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some positive developments

 Good on ya, Sweden and Finland:

[Duma chair] Volodin and other parliamentarians were on their way home from a visit to Cuba and Nicaragua when the pilots allegedly were told that the state-owned aircraft would not be allowed to enter Swedish and Finnish airspace.

The deviation of the plane from its original planned route is widely reported in Russian media on Saturday, as several reporters from the parliament press pool were traveling together with the delegation. Among them was Edward Chesnokov with Komsomolskaya Pravda, a reporter who detailed the flight pattern as the route was changed.

Flights between the largest city in Russia and tourist destinations in Central America are frequent and routes normally cross over Scandinavia a few hundreds of kilometers south of the Arctic Circle before the trans-Atlantic leg. 

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have closed their airspaces to Russian flights generally speaking. 

 And Germany's stepping up to respond to President Zelensky's "I need ammunition, not a ride" remark:

In a significant shift, the German government said Saturday it will send weapons and other supplies directly to Ukraine and supports some restrictions of the SWIFT global banking system for Russia.

Germany’s chancellery announced it will send 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 “Stinger” surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine “as quickly as possible.”

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine marks a turning point. It threatens our entire post-war order,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in a statement. “In this situation, it is our duty to help Ukraine, to the best of our ability, to defend itself against Vladimir Putin’s invading army.”

In addition, the German economy and climate ministry said Germany is allowing the Netherlands to ship 400 German-made anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.

And Alexander Vindman, who blew the whistle on the Very Stable Genius's attempt to bribe Zelensky with the sending of $400 million in military aid that Congress had already approved if he'd get the VSG some dirt on Biden - and who is Ukrainian by birth - got a standing ovation at the Principles First Summit in Washington today. 

It's late in the day, but there's still light. 

Ascertaining Putin's aims

 The notion that he's bluffing is a soothing balm. It would indeed be comforting to think that some kind of deal can be worked out whereby some kind of language vaguely approximating an assurance that Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO any time soon would be sufficient for Russia to climb down from the present brink.

That doesn't square with facts on the ground, however:

Russian mechanized forces now rolling into Belarus directly threaten NATO, not just Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies are rightly focused on obvious Russian preparations to invade Ukraine and on trying to deter Moscow. Russian troops moving into positions in southeastern Belarus could be preparing to invade, and the West must respond in that context. But Russian forces are also taking up positions on and near the Polish borderwithin about 100 miles of Warsaw and near the Lithuanian border as well. Deployments to these locations serve little purpose as part of a plan to invade Ukraine. They dramatically increase the Russian threat to Poland, however, and to NATO’s ability to defend its Baltic members even more. The U.S. and its Western European allies must respond to this threat to the alliance — whether or not the Russians attack Ukraine.

Seven to 10 mechanized battalions (equivalent to two-to-three brigades with 4,200-9,000 troops) have travelled from Russia’s Far East to Belarus. Two battalions of advanced Russian S-400 air defense systems as well as 12 Su-35 advanced fighters have also deployed to Belarus. Russia’s Defense Ministry claims these forces will remain in Belarus until mid-February for exercises. The exercises will supposedly occur primarily at training areas near Brest (on the Polish border), Baranovichi (northeast of Brest), Grodno (near the Lithuanian-Polish border), and Minsk. These are not the optimal locations from which to invade Ukraine, although Baranovichi is a good rear base from which Russian forces could stage for an attack. Some Russian troops, however, have already appeared in southeastern Belarus, far from any announced training area, and in one of the ideal locations from which to launch an invasion against Ukraine. The new Russian forces therefore threaten both Ukraine and NATO simultaneously.

The Russian move into Belarus is no spur-of-the-moment or opportunistic action. It is part of a long-term plan Vladimir Putin has been pursuing for years, which is why we have been forecasting it for many months. Putin has expressed his intent to open a military air base in Belarus since at least 2015. Russia has been preparing to project forces into Belarus since at least September 2020 through intensified combined exercises with Belarus. Russian troops have also been rehearsing logistics and command-and-control tasks necessary to deploy Russian forces into Belarus, including supplying fuel, ammunition, and other essentials closer to Belarus.

It sure looks like Poland and the Baltics are in Putin's crosshairs as well as Ukraine. 

And he's shoring up his support from a geographically close neighbor of the United States:

Following recent threats of a potential military deployment to Cuba earlier this month, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin discussed the “strategic partnership” and further coordination of “actions in the international arena” with Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel in a call disclosed Monday by the Kremlin.

In a tweet, Díaz-Canel said the two leaders held a “cordial and fruitful telephone conversation” about “the current international situation” and the development of “future links in different spheres.”

I realize that the US has sent Ukraine lethal munitions lately, and that Ukraine is determined to defend its sovereignty, but is 8,500 US troops being placed on "higher alert" for the time being sufficient US participation in that effort?  

Putin's a pretty astute cat. He saw that Germany was, in many ways, a wobbly member of the Western alliance, what with its rush to hobble its own energy independence and sign up for the Nordstream pipeline. That natural-gas delivery system is serving Putin's designs quite well at present:

An undersea pipeline set to deliver gas from Russia to Germany has become exactly what the two countries have always insisted it would never be: A weapon in a geopolitical crisis.

The United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine and several European Union member states have fiercely opposed the pipeline ever since it was first announced in 2015, warning the project would boost Moscow's influence in Europe.

The 1,200-km (750-mile) pipeline was completed in September and is now awaiting final certification. But even though the pipeline isn't operational yet, it has already acted as a huge wedge between the traditional allies at a time of huge tensions between Russia and the West.

According to experts, that on its own is a win for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a nonpartisan research center, said Moscow has benefited from the drama around the pipeline. "Everything about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been a victory for Russia," she told CNN.

"Given that Russia's aim is to split everybody, if they're seeking to break apart unity in the European Union and in NATO, this pipeline has been a wonderful vessel."

What this adds up to is not a mystery. Putin is not inscrutable. He's perfectly upfront in demonstrating his desire to see the US removed as a military, economic and cultural influence in Europe, and he's willing to risk conflagration on a level not seen since the 1940s to achieve it.  

 

 

 

The two latest fiasco moves by the Biden administration are unfortunately all too characteristic

 Biden foreign policy, in its own way, has been as damaging as that "guided" by the Very Stable Genius. In the current case, though, there's a consistent vision, and it's not a good one. Biden, Blinken et al think the world can come together in some kind of Great Reset mind-meld and make the lessons of history null and void. 

For instance, what in the hell is up with this?

On July 13, Blinken issued a “formal, standing invitation” to various U.N. functionaries to analyze “contemporary forms of racism” in the U.S. and applauded the U.N. Human Rights Council’s adoption of a “resolution to address systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent in the context of law enforcement.”

The reasoned mind recoils. The misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council is a festering blight, no more appropriate as a moral arbiter than the 1970s Soviet Politburo. 

Today’s Human Rights Council includes representatives of such murderous regimes of China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, and Somalia. Of the 47 member nations of the Human Rights Council, 11 are ranked “not free” at all by the respected arbiter Freedom House, and only 15 are rated as “free” (rather than only “partially” so). 

For the Human Rights Council, or indeed for the oft-benighted U.N. as a whole, to investigate or sit in judgment of U.S. practices is not just insult but abomination.

And then there's this:

The US announced Wednesday that it has reached a deal with Germany that would allow completion of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline opposed by the Biden administration as a "malign influence project" that Russia could use to gain leverage over European allies.

"While we remain opposed to the pipeline, we reached the judgment that sanctions would not stop its construction and risked undermining a critical alliance with Germany, as well as with the EU and other European allies," a senior State Department official said Wednesday. 

The announcement is unlikely to end bitter divides over the pipeline, with US lawmakers condemning the agreement, Ukrainian officials immediately weighing in to say they are lodging diplomatic protests and even the US acknowledging their opposition to the project remains firm.

"I would just say emphatically that we still oppose Nord Stream 2, we still believe it's a Russian geopolitical malign influence project, none of that has changed," the senior official said.

These two moves send signals onto the world stage that are not at all good. In the case of the latter situation, consider that the Biden administration thinks fossil fuel pipelines within the North American continent are icky. But a Russian pipeline that is capable of enhancing Russia's ability to extort from Ukraine and any other European country it wants to is apparently just fine.  

 

 

Saturday roundup

The  headline for the Washington Post's story about May unemployment numbers had a hold-off-on-the-celebration tone to it, but it turns out to be a case in which reading the actual article greatly diminishes the sensationalism:

. . . the Washington Post is out with a story titled “A ‘misclassification error’ made the May unemployment rate look better than it is.  Here’s what happened.”

The story itself takes the shock out of the headline. Nothing went wrong with the May unemployment rate in particular. There’s just an ongoing, and incredibly boring, technical difficulty stemming from the pandemic.

Basically, the unemployment rate is calculated from surveys the government conducts; people are classified as employed, unemployed, or out of the labor force depending on the answers they give to a slew of questions. But these questions were not written with a pandemic in mind. For instance, if someone is not working because their business was idled, are they considered temporarily laid off (and thus unemployed), or are they employed but not working, like someone who’s on leave?

These workers are supposed to be counted as unemployed, but they’re not always getting entered into the system that way:

The BLS instructed surveyors to try to figure out if someone was absent because of the pandemic and, if so, to classify them as on “temporary layoff,” meaning they would count in the unemployment data. But some people continued to insist they were just “absent” from work during the pandemic, and the BLS has a policy of not changing people’s answers once they are recorded. It’s how the BLS protects again[st] bias or data manipulation.

How does this affect the numbers? Basically, it just makes the official unemployment rate a little lower during this period. After adjusting for the sudden rise of “absent” workers, the March, April, and May unemployment rates are about 5.4 percent, 19.7 percent, and 16.3 percent, respectively, instead of the official figures of 4.4 percent, 14.7 percent, and 13.3 percent. The unemployment rate still fell a bit in May when everyone expected it to rise, and it’s still good news.

Hey, I warned you it was boring.

Saving Elephants, a website I've recently discovered and become a big fan of, has the second part of a series on how belief in an enduring moral order is the crux of conservatism. The latest installment explores how we can know that the order exists a priori:

Kirk summarized two methods of discerning order outside of reason. The first was prescription—"those ways and institutions and rights prescribed by long—sometimes immemorial—usage”—and the second was tradition—“received opinions, convictions religious and moral and political and aesthetic passed down from generation to generation.” Both methods operate from a basis of faith—namely, faith in the notion that order can be discerned via revealed truths or those things shown to be true through generations of trial-and-error. The conservative who believes in God might go so far as to say that the only reason humans would ever conform to order—which grates against our sin nature of appetite and pleasure-seeking—is that God has put inside of each of us the capacity for both discerning and obeying that order.

 Part One is here. Poke around the site. Great podcasts and resources for learning more about the foundations of conservatism.

This one's pretty big and may warrant its own post as things develop: The VSG has issued a directive to draw down U.S. troops in Germany by 9500, and, as of mid-day Saturday German time, had not notified that country's government.

Senate Republicans fear that the VSG might take their majority in that chamber down with him in November. Well, people, it's a little late in the game, but you could still demonstrate some spine and forthrightly declare that you're not in his camp.

Bracing piece by Alexandra Hudson at The Bulwark on how the riots press upon us the truth that it never takes all that much to sever the gossamer thread by which civilization hangs:

The violence and destruction that emerged from the protests, and the speed with which they emerged, should cause us to reconsider some of our assumptions—some of the fundamental social facts we misunderstand or take for granted. In particular, the events of the past week provide a valuable reminder of the fragility of our civilization and our way of life; they refute the notion of inevitable human progress; and they underscore the way in which a truly civilized society is underpinned by a respect for equal human dignity—without which we are lost.

First, the fragility of civilization. Many of us ordinarily and unthinkingly assume that the civilization—and perhaps even the peace and prosperity—we enjoy are somehow natural, the default state of things. Students of history, of course, know otherwise. And even before the events of the last week, 2020 has been an education in overturning such comfortable assumptions.

The riots remind us that civilization and community are not foregone conclusions. They do not simply spring up from the earth, but are the work of centuries; they are the fruit of institutional and social arrangements that must be cultivated and nurtured in our every interaction, every day. Democratic governments in particular depend upon most individuals choosing to follow the law, respect their fellow citizens, and act for the common good. As we saw over the last week, when even just a few citizens choose not to do so, chaos ensues.

Second, the riots also refute the conceit of human progress—the notion that we are continually evolving to have moral and ethical codes superior to those of our forebears. In his autobiographical book Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis referred to this way of thinking as “chronological snobbery”—“the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.”

Whether today or two millennia ago, the right conditions can unleash the worst of human nature. We remain as vulnerable to fear and rage and tribalism and a “mob mentality” as we have ever been. Social science research suggests that when people act in groups, individuals suppress their moral codes and dispel some of the social and societal constraints that otherwise inhibit violence and destruction. Relatedly, research also suggests that the sense of self—and the individual moral codes that come with it—are diminished in crowds. Anonymity is easier to maintain in large groups, and responsibility is easier to spread across large numbers.

Thanks especially to advances in technology, our overall standards of living have risen dramatically in the last several hundred years. But it is a mistake to think that because our species is improving materially, we are also improving socially and morally. The chaos we observed across the country over the last week reminds us of the truth of an unchanging human nature. 

That last point, by the way, is the point of Part One of the series at Saving Elephants.  We keep getting fancier in terms of comfort, convenience and amazing gadgets but we're still the same critters we were when we got kicked out of the garden of Eden.

What's the most important qualification for any job in Trumpworld? Loyalty to the VSG

This appointment of Richard Grennell as acting director of national intelligence is not going over well:

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he has named Richard Grenell, a staunch loyalist, as acting spy chief.

"I am pleased to announce that our highly respected Ambassador to Germany, @RichardGrenell, will become the Acting Director of National Intelligence. Rick has represented our Country exceedingly well and I look forward to working with him," Trump tweeted. 

Trump also thanked outgoing acting director Joseph Maguire "for the wonderful job he has done, and we look forward to working with him closely, perhaps in another capacity within the Administration!"

News of the pick, which was first reported by the New York Times, comes as Trump faces a March 11 deadline to nominate a new director of national intelligence or name a new acting spy chief as federal law prevents Maguire from serving beyond that date.

Even in an acting role, Grenell's lack of intelligence-related experience is likely to unsettle the US intelligence community, which has endured repeated attacks from the President since his 2016 election win over the Russia investigation and later the whistleblower complaint that gave way to the Ukraine impeachment inquiry, which made Trump just the third president in American history to be impeached.

But it does not appear that Trump is looking for someone with deep intelligence experience in the role -- a former senior White House official described Trump's decision as "filling the gaps" following the impeachment acquittal, sensing disloyalty in Maguire, and filling that position with somebody he sees as sufficiently loyal. Trump is "looking for a 'political' who will have his back," the former official said.

However, the move is raising concerns even among Trump allies who have been quick to point out that Grenell's primary qualification appears to be his loyalty to the President. 

One source close to Trump told CNN they were surprised by the pick, noting Grenell has zero intelligence-related experience.

And another Trump adviser described Grenell as "out of his league" for the acting DNI job, adding that some in the administration are "embarrassed by his behavior." Previous holders of the DNI job have served in the intelligence community, the US Senate and senior levels of the military. Grenell, on the other hand, does not boast a resume with similar credentials despite his stint as the US ambassador to Germany. 

"Everybody came into (the DNI job) with a relevant understanding, of which this guy has none," said Bob Litt, former ODNI general counsel, who called the move "extremely dangerous."

"This is a President who has loathed and feared the (intelligence community) since before he was inaugurated and he views them as a deep state hostile to him seeking to undercut him and he'll seek to undercut them," he said. "Clearly the important thing here is the President feels Grenell will do his bidding."

He seems like a sharp enough fellow, and before the Trump phenomenon occurred, he seemed to have a skill for articulating conservative positions on whatever the topic of discussion was. But it's true he has nothing of an intelligence nature on his resume. He's been a political consultant. That's it.

 The above-excerpted CNN story alludes to "[h]is track record in Germany [having] raised some concerns." I wanted to find out a little more about that, and his Wikipedia bio gets into some of the details:

In May 2018, within hours of taking office in Berlin as US Ambassador, Grenell offended diplomats and business leaders when he tweeted that “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.”^[29] The tweet was widely perceived as a threat, with the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Jean Asselborn, commenting that "This man was accredited as ambassador only yesterday. To give German businesses such orders … that’s just not how you can treat your allies.”^[30] The leader of Germany's Social Democratic Partystated that Grenell "does appear to need some tutoring" in the "fine art of diplomacy", while the Die Linke party urged the Merkel government to summon Grenell to explain his comments.^[30]

In June 2018, Grenell stirred controversy by telling Breitbart News, "I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders."^[31] It was viewed as anti-establishment.^[32][33] This was described as a breach of diplomatic protocol and a breach of Article 14 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which requires ambassadors to be politically neutral in the domestic politics of the countries where they serve.^[34][31] Prominent German politicians called for Grenell's dismissal.^{[35][36][37][38]} Martin Schulz, former leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, said, "What this man is doing is unheard of in international diplomacy. If a German ambassador were to say in Washington that he is there to boost the Democrats, he would have been kicked out immediately."^[35]

Grenell was a regular contributor on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight during the first few months of his Ambassadorship in Germany. In November 2018 he made an appearance where he repeated his criticism of Angela Merkel's immigration policies and compared her unfavorably to the recently-elected Chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz, whom he claimed "won in a very big way" because of his strict stance on immigration. The magazine Der Spiegel called it a "thinly veiled call for a change of government in Berlin".^[34]

In December 2018, during the affair surrounding Der Spiegel journalist Claas Relotius, Grenell wrote to the magazine complaining about an anti-Americaninstitutional bias ("Anti-Amerikanismus") and asked for an independent investigation.^[39][40] Grenell wrote that "These fake news stories largely focus on U.S. policies and certain segments of the American people."^[41]

In January 2019, Grenell told Handelsblatt that European companies participating in the construction of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline are "always in danger, because sanctions are always possible". The Trump administration has long opposed the Russian-backed Nord Stream 2 — a pipeline for delivering natural gas from Russia to Germany.^[42] Within that context he also sent letters to German companies involved in the construction of said Nord Stream 2, threatening sanctions.^[43] In response, Angela Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrat Union, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, stated that "The American Ambassador operates in a, shall I say, somewhat unusual diplomatic manner."^[44]

Der Spiegel published a profile of Grenell on January 11, 2019, using interviews with 30 “American and German diplomats, cabinet members, lawmakers, high-ranking officials, lobbyists and think tank experts". The magazine claimed that "Almost all of these sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador, one remarkably similar to Donald Trump, the man who sent him to Berlin. A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism." The profile claimed that Grenell is politically isolated in Berlin because of his association with the far-right Alternative for Germany Party, causing the leaders of the mainstream German parties, including the Chancellor herself, to avoid contact with him.^[34] The sources claimed that Grenell "knows little about Germany and Europe, that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write for him, and that his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial."^[34]

A disrupter in the Trumpian mold.

And I doubt that the search for someone to officially fill that position is going to turn up a lot of first-tier possibilities.

The consensus grows that Iran blatantly attacked Saudi Arabia

There's an avalanche of breaking developments this afternoon, and so there are going to be a flurry of LITD posts in short order, but I think I'll lead off with this rather remarkable joint statement by the leaders of France, the UK and Germany:

We, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, recall our shared common security interests, in particular upholding the global non-proliferation regime and preserving stability in the Middle East.

We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks on oil facilities on Saudi territory on September 14th, 2019 in Abqaiq and Khurais, and reaffirm in this context our full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its population.

It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.

These attacks may have been against Saudi Arabia but they concern all countries and increase the risk of a major conflict. They underline the importance of making collective efforts towards regional stability and security, including finding a political solution to the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The attacks also highlight the necessity of de-escalation in the region through sustained diplomatic efforts and engagement with all parties.

In this regard, we recall our continued commitment to the JCPoA, agreed with Iran on July 14th, 2015 and unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council. We urge Iran once again to reverse its decisions to reduce compliance with the deal and to adhere fully to its commitments under it. We call upon Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA in the framework of the JCPoA and its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

Conscious of the importance of collective efforts to guarantee regional stability and security, we reiterate our conviction that the time has come for Iran to accept negotiation on a long-term framework for its nuclear programme as well as on issues related to regional security, including its missiles programme and other means of delivery.

We are committed to continuing our diplomatic efforts to create conditions and facilitate dialogue with all relevant partners interested in de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East, in the interest of preserving international peace and security, building upon our joint declaration on July 14th, 2019 and G7 conclusions adopted in Biarritz. We urge Iran to engage in such a dialogue and refrain from further provocation and escalation.

And I know Donald Trump is about to get a rather big dollop of something new on his plate (in about 50 minutes, in fact; stay tuned), but he did give a UN speech today that on the subjects of Iran and the Middle East generally, was spot-on:

Trump . . . sought in his UN speech to rally world opinion against Iran, saying no responsible government should “subsidize Iran’s blood lust.” 

Trump said Iran’s leaders were fanatical about acquiring nuclear weapons and vowed that U.S. sanctions won’t be lifted until Iran’s “menacing behavior” continues. 

And he served notice that it's time to make the realignment of power dynamics in the region more official:

"There is a growing recognition in the wider Middle East that the countries in the region share common interests in battling extremism and unleashing economic opportunity. That is why it is so important to have full, normalized relations between Israel and its neighbors."

It's good that he squeezed that into his busy day, because he has his hands full with other matters as evening approaches.

But to return to the main point, it's heartening to see that there's growing clarity on the world stage about what Iran is really all about

Trump's protectionist trade orientation is one manifestation of his overall touchiness

This post is going to unfold from a personal correspondence.

This morning, I received the following Facebook private message from a friend:

You are a much more intelligent guy than me. Can you explain the tariff argument along with the trade deficit? I am kind of the opinion that i have a 100 percent trade deficit with every business i purchase from. I buy from them because me wants and tgey won't buy from me because they don't. I feel like we will just be footing the bill. I will biy good fairly priced american goods as i find them...but other than that i need good fairly priced items from wherever. This is an honest ask for your thoughts as I don't know about the macro picture over my micro view.

I responded thusly:

You are exactly right! Don't short-sell your economic understanding! The micro view has to be at the core of all economic consideration. Trade deficits and surpluses between countries are largely irrelevant. transactions occur between organizations and people. 

I boil my economic views down to this: A good or service is worth what buyer and seller agree that it is worth. Period. No outside party has any business being part of that agreement - certainly not government.

Shortly afterward, I came across today's Townhall column by Walter Williams, which I was excited to share with my friend.  It's about the folly of tariffs and the whole thing is a worthwhile read, but I'll share here the money paragraph:

There's a lot of nonsense talk about international trade, which some define as one country's trading with another. When an American purchases a Mercedes, it does not represent the U.S. Congress' trading with the German Bundestag. It represents an American citizen's engaging in peaceable, voluntary exchange, through intermediaries, with a German auto producer. When voluntary exchange occurs, it means that both parties are better off in their own estimation -- not Trump's estimation or General Motors' estimation. I'd like to hear the moral case for third-party interference with such an exchange.

I think it is important to view Trump's protectionism in a somewhat larger context. As you know, he's currently in Europe for three distinct meetings: a NATO summit, and get-togethers with Theresa May and Vladimir Putin.

He kicked things off - or maybe kicked them in the shins - at the NATO breakfast this morning in his signature wild way:

If this was breakfast what will happen at lunch?

In a tweet posted early this morning, President Trump showed a video of his breakfast with the NATO General Secretary where he put NATO allies —  particularly Germany — on blast for not paying enough to the alliance and also buying Russian oil and gas.

At the beginning of the video the President says…

I think it is very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia where you’re (NATO) supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia.

Check out the whole 2-minute and 20-second video below and look at the body language of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (sitting to the right of Trump) and Chief of Staff John Kelly (sitting last on his left) and let me know what you think.

T. LaDuke at Red State, from whom I'm excerpting,  concludes on a more hopeful note than I would have:

President Trump is in bridge blow up mode with our allies and adding more than 200 billion more in tariffs to China. This is going to be an interesting rest of the year.

Let’s hope he knows what he is doing.

Sorry, T., LITD is long past the point of granting the possibility that the Very Stable Genius knows what he is doing.

Now, it's true that the gas and oil deal is counterproductive when one considers how Putin has used its role as a supplier of those resources to bring Europe to heel in the past, but was this breakfast the way to make that point, and was his rhetoric the way to express it?

Which gets us to the even larger point Jonah Goldberg makes in his Townhall piece today. His theme is the seeming emergence of a Trump Doctrine. Said doctrine is unlike any of its predecessors in US foreign policy history. It's a pure reflection of its namesake's self-regard.

The Trump Doctrine is taking form in a series of tweets, glandular outbursts at press conferences and a series of seemingly inchoate policy rollouts.

Last month, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg (no relation), asked a number of Trump aides what the tagline of the Trump Doctrine might be. The winning entry: "We're America, bitch." I don't think that's quite it.

Another contender, offered by a senior national security official: "Permanent destabilization creates American advantage." That's closer.

President Trump and his biggest supporters see the president as the Great Disruptor. The "globalist" world order -- on trade, military alliances, sanction regimes, etc. -- has not served America's interests, and Trump is like Samson pulling down the pillars that hold up the Temple of Dagon, the shrine of the Philistines. Though, in their telling, he will escape the debris.

[snip]

Trump, whose id often controls his understanding of policy, seems to think our allies are like members of his entourage picking his pocket. NATO, he says, is "worse than NAFTA," and the European Union was created "to take advantage of the United States." (It wasn't.)
Meanwhile, even as Trump treats allied leaders such as Canada's Justin Trudeau and Germany's Angela Merkel like punching bags, he has gone to great lengths to praise and defend authoritarians in Russia, Turkey, China, the Philippines and elsewhere. At least such leaders are "strong," he often says. Trump genuflects at the sovereign inviolability of national borders, but even that goes out the window when it comes to Crimea's borders. Because Putin is "strong."

The Trump Doctrine, in short, is simply the international relations analogue to the domestic version of Trumpism. The Big Man personifies the national will, and constraints on the national will are for suckers. Self-interest, personally defined, is inherently in conflict with collective interest. It's Make America Great Again on a global scale. One problem: The world was not that great when everybody followed this doctrine.  

Since his pre-politics career was defined by an insistence on not being dissed, the new outfit he heads, namely the United States, will not be dissed, as it would be a reflection on him.

You can't have a consistent set of principles, or an understanding of economic verities, if your id is the driving force in your worldview.

LaDuke made reference to the body language of Pompeo and Kelly. I'd like to know the content of private conversations between Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore these days.