Open mike 24/02/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 24th, 2025 - 69 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

69 comments on “Open mike 24/02/2025 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dennis Frank 1
    24 February 2025 at 7:16 am

    I have yet to see any report of any NZ university teaching geopolitics, despite that it has been taught overseas since the late 19th century. In the academic world, the pace of progress remains glacial. Fortunately the Chinese govt have decided to fire off some of their guns nearby in an attempt to wake up our establishment. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542714/expert-says-china-s-military-exercise-in-tasman-sea-serves-as-serious-threat

    Brady, who specialises in China and the Pacific, said it was an attempt to intimidate that has significantly changed the security environment.

    "These are all deliberate signals to New Zealand, and Australia, and the other Pacific governments with military force, such as Fiji and Tonga, that China is wanting to establish a permanent military presence in the region," she said. "It's a threat, it's a signal that China wants to change the strategic order." She warned New Zealand had to do more to defend itself and the Pacific. Funneling more money into defence should be top priority after successive governments had "depleted" the force, meaning New Zealand could "barely respond" to China's challenge, Brady said.

    National is delighted, of course. Finally we get to rejoin the arms race! Whoopee!! Doesn't matter that the nation can't afford it. The potemkin village strategy will be recycled once again… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

    • KJT 1.1
      24 February 2025 at 8:36 am

      Why the hell would China bother to invade.

      Much cheaper to just buy the place, as the Coalition of cockups sells us off.

      • Res Publica 1.1.1
        24 February 2025 at 9:13 am

        The problem isn't invasion per se.

        It's China's ability and willingness to use the threat of force to achieve their foreign policy goals, control the flow of international trade we rely on, and turn the South Pacific into their own colonial playground.

        • KJT 1.1.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 12:26 pm

          Currently the biggest threat to NZ, is US fascism and their wannabee clones in NZ.

          Not China.

          China knows that the Coalition of cockups will sell anything to them regardless. So why pay the cost of invasion.

    • Res Publica 1.2
      24 February 2025 at 8:52 am

      I have yet to see any report of any NZ university teaching geopolitics,

      I did a BA in Political Science at Massey University in late noughties, and we were absolutely taught (and spent a lot of time debating) geopolitics.

      National is delighted, of course. Finally we get to rejoin the arms race! Whoopee!! Doesn't matter that the nation can't afford it. The potemkin village strategy will be recycled once again… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

      I think it's inarguable that the run-down of our defense establishment has harmed our ability to protect our interests and has even almost attrited away our ability to deploy UN peacekeeping forces.

      If we can no longer rely on the rule-based international order, or US protection without necessarily being allied, what do you think our options are?

      To me, it would absolutely make sense to invest in a defence force worthy of the name that can at least patrol and maintain control over our EEZ, as well as contribute to any UN or multilateral operations.

      • Dennis Frank 1.2.1
        24 February 2025 at 10:18 am

        we were absolutely taught (and spent a lot of time debating) geopolitics.

        Thanks for that feedback. It means clueless dork syndrome hasn't totally prevailed, which is rather reassuring. smiley

        Re our options, they'll be driven by Oz alignment in a Trumpian direction. Freedom is the ruling ideology still…

        • Res Publica 1.2.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 10:34 am

          There were still a lot of clueless tankie dorks around, don't you worry about that.

          Unfortunately, some of them have gone on to have long and prosperous careers in our foreign and economic policy establishments.

      • KJT 1.2.2
        24 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

        Dreaming!

        How much are you planning to spend?

        We cannot afford a credible defense against Indonesia, let alone China.

        Remaining non-aligned best protects our interests.

        Joining in with fantasies of a winnable war against China, is just daft. Own goal when they are our second largest trading partner and the USA doesn't want anything we sell.

        • Res Publica 1.2.2.1
          24 February 2025 at 3:03 pm

          You're right: It's never going to be viable for us to win a war against China (or Indonesia for that matter). Neither is engaging in any kind of armed conflict a preferable option.

          But what is viable, affordable, and necessary in light of the US withdrawal from the rules-based international order is building a sufficiently strong navy and air capability to head off casual violations of our EEZ, protect our interests (and partners) in the South Pacific, and demonstrate that we're willing to pull our weight in any alliance.

          From a quick bit of research:

          • A long-range naval patrol UAV would only clock in at about $70m NZD each and would offer us 24/7 capability that we could back up with the new Poseidon fleet with minimum manpower.
          • As for naval assets, a new frigate based on the Korean FFK could offer us a great deal more capability and flexibility than the ANZAC frigates at a reasonable cost. Rough guess is somewhere between $400-500m NZD.

            Although given our track record with Korean shipyards, maybe it'll be higher.

            #ThanksNicola

            We would need at least 3 (preferably 5 or 6), so let's say $2.5b for a modern frigate force with VLS capability that can handle both air defense and AWS.

          Put together you're only talking an extra $800m-$1b a year and spending a whopping 1% of our GDP on defense.

          Of course, we still need the infrastructure and manpower and supply chain to operate all this kit.

          But even if you include that, it's a snip compared with the $3b a year we're currently eating to give landlords (some of whom are from our potential competitors) a tax break.

          ​​​​​​​

        • Corey 1.2.2.2
          24 February 2025 at 7:31 pm

          Noones talking about fighting off china. However we need to aim to atleast get back to spending atleast 2 of our GDP on defence, we used to spend 2.6%!

          We have one of the worlds largest marine borders and a couple of old rust bucket from the 80s and two navy patrol ships patrolling it.

          The fact we can't defend our exclusive economic zone from pirates or illegal activity is shameful.

          We are on the Pacific ring of fire, us and our neighbors have many natural disasters.

          In 20-30 years my generation is going to have to deal with human trafficking climate change and we will not have the military capacity to stop it.

          It's actually shameful that every prime minister since Muldoon has gutted this country's defense of its people, it's real, it's territory and ability to deploy humanitarian emergency services.

          However, atleast the 2017-2020 government was able to upgrade some equipment and get rid of those ancient Hercules

          Ron Mark was a damn good defence minister.

          The current government was laying off even more defence staff last year, insanity.

          We don't live in the benign global world that Bolger, Shipley, Clark and Key pretended we lived in.

          We need to upgrade capacity and aid to the Pacific because holy crap it's a cluster f and china is waiting with debt traps.

    • gsays 1.3
      24 February 2025 at 8:55 am

      If Brady is serious, I want a churno to ask her how much more needs to be allocated to defence for us to successfully defend or repel a Chinese invasion.

      Far better to increase spending on talking to China, I'm confident we would have a lot of common interests in relation to our Pacific Island cousins.

      It would be of interest to see how our investment/aid/ infrastructure spend now compares to pre '84 'reforms'.

    • mikesh 1.4
      24 February 2025 at 9:19 am

      NZ recently sent a military vessel into the South China Sea. Perhaps the Chinese are playing tit-for-tat, and warning us to keep our ships out of their back yard.

      • SPC 1.4.1
        24 February 2025 at 10:38 am

        Maybe, if they were not also seeking access to the fisheries and seabed mining resources of the South Pacific, including of the Cook Islands, which is for now still of our realm.

        This being of a pattern, as per claim to resources of the South China Sea, off ASEAN nations – their fishing and seabed economic zone resources.

        The Cook Island agreement might well be seen as in breach of South Pacific nation declarations.

        • Mike the Lefty 1.4.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 12:30 pm

          The Cooks have likely signed their fisheries into oblivion because that is what the Chinese do – move the fleet in and take all the fish.

        • mikesh 1.4.1.2
          24 February 2025 at 6:31 pm

          Shooting guns differs somewhat from mining or fishing.

    • Populuxe 1.5
      24 February 2025 at 10:31 am

      Our universities do actually teach geopolitics, but it's actually called International Relations.

      • Dennis Frank 1.5.2
        24 February 2025 at 12:00 pm

        Okay, that makes sense. There is a difference in focus though, seems to me. Geopolitics implies more of a conceptual overview, like a ruling paradigm. Whereas the Cold War featured binary framing, the G7/G8 meetings have been multipolar.

        International relations seems more like an arena of general state interactions regardless of who is pulling the strings. For instance, the Bilderbergers do overt informal international relations, in which geopolitics operates in their subtext.

        So it is sensible for our universities to teach the general theory of state relations and include whatever paradigm operates above that at any point in history.

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    24 February 2025 at 7:37 am

    So what happened to the left in the German election?

    SPD, the party of current Chancellor Olaf Scholz, slumped to third place, with just 16% of the vote – its worst showing in decades. “I’ll never come to terms with this,” Scholz said. https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/germany-election-polls-results-intl/index.html

    Somewhat defeatist, that stance. There's a good chance he will integrate the thing eventually. Victim of circumstance is a typical diagnosis which people default to if nothing better shows up.

    the Greens ended up fourth with 13.5% of the vote.

    Be thankful for small mercies, I reckon! yes

    • SPC 2.1
      24 February 2025 at 11:47 am

      The Greens would be wise to enable a CD/SD minority government; but keep out of it (maybe seek a policy win for this).

      They would then be free to proffer an alternative, as would the German left.

      It would also result in the AFD providing votes to provide a majority on some legislation.

      The objective being a future SD/Green government dependent on the German left or FD for a majority.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    24 February 2025 at 7:41 am

    Sino phobe, and US Imperialist suck up Brady is not a person to be taken seriously on such matters. Brady has previously accepted NATO funding (under its “Science for Peace and Security” programme) via the SSANSE (Small States and the New Security Environment) initiative, she claims it was just airfares and accomodation for a couple of offshore conferences.
    https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/research/about-uc-research/research-groups-and-centres/small-states-and-the-new-security-environment

    Some Chinese ships cruising around popping off a few rounds could hardly be compared to the militaristic history of the South Pacific by Northern/Western powers. Colonial takeovers of various islands and poor treatment of indigenous people including Australia and New Zealand. Nuclear testing by US, Britain and France that ruined various atolls and island territory environments. Waste is still a problem.

    The world order is changing and some do not like it. The biggest mistake many make in geo politics is siding with “their” ruling class preferred imperialist power. The working class internationalist position remains…“neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing”.

    • Res Publica 3.1
      24 February 2025 at 9:11 am

      Your argument is a tired patchwork of ad hominem insults and selective historical grievances. Pointing to travel expense reimbursements as evidence of bias is as laughable as ignoring the strategic calculus behind modern naval deployments.

      If we're going to debate geopolitics, let's ask the pertinent question: why would China send a bunch of extremely expensive warships to fire off extremely expensive munitions so far south if not to project power and signal its strategic intent?

      Such maneuvers are far from random: they're calculated actions aimed at asserting presence and challenging the established maritime order, not mere echoes of colonial ambition. Instead of resorting to recycled slogans and half-truths, let's focus on the facts and the nuanced realities of international security.

      If we remove all of the lazy analysis and trite sloganeering the analysis is stark: The Tasman Sea is no longer guaranteed to be safe waters, and we risk losing control of our own sovereignty and our own EEZ if we don't invest in some kind of military capability at home and alliances abroad.

      We can debate socialist theory and global working-class solidarity all day, but the fact of the matter is the authoritarians and oligarchs have guns. And we do not.

      • Phillip ure 3.1.1
        24 February 2025 at 9:36 am

        Re the question in your 2nd para:

        A couple of weeks ago it was reported that Australia had sent a warship thru the straits separating china and Taiwan..

        ..and that china had protested against this provocation…

        I see this as tit for tat..nothing more.. nothing less..

        ..a Chinese warship drive-by..

        • Res Publica 3.1.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 10:30 am

          Good point!

          Freedom of navigation exercises: whether conducted by the US, Australia, or even little old NZ are fundamentally about sending a clear, unambiguous message: “Keep your waters open, or we'll force you to.”

          If we’re willing to acknowledge that fact, we also need to scrutinize China’s response with equal candor. Which leaves us facing a disturbing possibility.

          Unlike the measured, rules-based operations of established democracies, China's maneuvers could be a signal not only of its intent to project power into the South Pacific, but of a willingness to escalate to armed confrontation if challenged.

          It’s one thing to assert maritime rights within an established international framework; it’s another to test the resolve of neighboring powers by demonstrating that force remains an option.

          In essence, while this kind of posturing is a standard in international maritime strategy, the stakes vary significantly. Such operations reinforce a global order founded on legal norms and mutual deterrence.

          In contrast, if we accept a similar rationale for China's actions, we’re left facing a sobering reality: one where the readiness to use military force in our waters becomes a genuine and dangerous possibility.

          • Populuxe 3.1.1.1.1
            24 February 2025 at 10:42 am

            The chief difference being that while the South China Sea is a major shipping route for the countries involved, unless China has extended the Silk Belt to the penguins in Antarctica, it's a lot less justifiable.

            • SPC 3.1.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2025 at 10:53 am

              China is the worlds major nation as per sea bed mining. It goes anywhere the minerals are – South Pacific and to Antarctica. The same for fishing.

            • mikesh 3.1.1.1.1.2
              24 February 2025 at 6:44 pm

              Freedom of movement seems fine for commercial vessels, but may not apply to military craft necessarily.

              • Populuxe …
                24 February 2025 at 9:18 pm

                Commercial vessels have every right to be protected both from pirates and from states illegally attempting to annex open waters.

    • Stephen D 3.2
      24 February 2025 at 10:34 am

      Pablo putting the whole story into perspective.

      https://www.kiwipolitico.com/2025/02/about-that-plan-flotilla-in-the-tasman-sea/

      “Everyone needs to clam down and relax.“

    • Populuxe 3.3
      24 February 2025 at 10:40 am

      While it is true that Bradey is far from objective on China, it is equally true that the cadre of retired Clark-era diplomats still stuck in 1990s "benign strategic environment" mindset that China just wants trade are just as unobjective.

      It's kind of weird that you compare China to historical colonial powers and don't acknowledge that as a problem. I thought we'd established that colonialism and imperialism were bad.

      • SPC 3.3.1
        24 February 2025 at 10:57 am

        I would have thought the participation within Five Eyes and maintenance and re-development of ties with the USA (to the point of AUKUS Pillar 2) was more pertinent. We developed our FTA with China after the USA allowed China into the WTO.

  4. PsyclingLeft.Always 4
    24 February 2025 at 9:09 am

    The working class internationalist position remains…“neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing”.

    Tiger Mountain. I would agree with that. IMO NZ should be allies of..our Pacific Brothers and Sisters. Much more close alignment could have stymied the Chinese Capitalist/Communist Party takeover of our neighbours in the Cook Islands.

    I absolutely worry about the CCCP's deep sea mining plans. As do many Cook Islanders.

    Tangata Whenua and Pacific Island communities, particularly those living subsistence lifestyles in coastal areas, will pay the highest price. At the centre of their identities and ways of life, Tangata Whenua and Pacific Peoples have deep spiritual and cultural ties to the ocean.

    https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/explore/seabed-mining/

    Analysis: Anger in Cook Islands at recent moves

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/02/08/analysis-anger-in-cook-islands-at-recent-moves/

    I also note that the Cook's Prime Minister Mark Brown….Very much a cheerleading pro miner. A bit like if our NZ Fist MP Shane Jones was Prime Minister…. aaargh !

  5. Phillip ure 5
    24 February 2025 at 10:15 am

    Re just the latest defeat handed to a 'left'party..in Germany..and the corresponding rise in right wing populism:

    And it being accepted these defeats for the left are a result of them failing to deliver for their support base ..

    Making promises like ending child poverty in nz…and not delivering..

    I really hope labour are taking note of these defeats for the left…

    And that they will go into the next election with a brace of 'change' policies..

    (Two suggestions: a solid blow against the entrenchment of child poverty done by h. clark…and the extending of family support to the formerly deemed undeserving families..i.e..the non-working..

    Another being the restoration of birthright in nz…to end the ongoing nightmare of those born here since the removal of birthright in 2006…

    This latter is a textbook case of ill thought out/kneejerk/racist legislation..(both of them are . actually)

    ..and has left these young new Zealanders in this parlous/untenable position..

    This must be put right..

    And labour surely must know they have to promise real change…and most importantly…to then deliver on those pledges .

    To fail to do both will see the rise of the right here…

    ..just more incrementalism on a few issues in the next labour government..

    ..will doom them to one term…

    ..and if we follow international examples…that rise of the right…

    ..these are crucial times…

  6. Stephen D 6
    24 February 2025 at 10:28 am

    Chris Bishop talking sense.

    https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2025/02/24/nationals-urbanist-minister/

    “I make no apologies for being an urbanist. Well-functioning urban environments with abundant housing, transport that gets people where they need to go quickly and efficiently, and functional infrastructure, will do more to create a brighter future for Kiwis than just about anything else government can do.”

    Let’s hope he’s allowed to.

    • Shanreagh 6.2
      24 February 2025 at 11:20 am

      Let us hope he is allowed to advance an urbanist perspective and one that includes but mitigates if needed, rather than denies, that cars EV & petrol, motorbikes ie anything with a motor has a place. I'm mindful of the fact that even with the best public transport in the world, and we have not got that yet, I still value my car, cars are still valuable to access the world outside the village.

      I remember being shocked to the core when at varsity in the 1970s (Auckland) when friends' children had never been to the centre of Auckland or seen Rangitoto from downtown.

      In the early 2000s this was experienced by my sister, a secondary school teacher who found her class had never been out of their suburbs let alone anywhere else in NZ. I'd rather these children had a future even if they had to travel somewhere by car rather than exist in tiny villages like in England before rail etc opened eyes to the world.

      I'd like to prevent those wandering around with a figurative silver stake to plunge into the heart of a transport mode that has benefits and whose downsides can be mitigated.

  7. SPC 7
    24 February 2025 at 11:04 am

    Haaretz responds to the German election result.

    Jerusalem's focus will be on who they'll be doing business with: their governing counterparts in the next government, the center-right Christian Democrats

    He has vowed to "do everything" to ensure that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can visit Germany

    "We share the assessment that the current status quo (Oslo Accords-Gaza) is not sustainable in the long run."

    For Israel, the AfD is the cherry on top – providing a platform to continue their shared crusade against Muslims and Palestinians in Germany for their own self-serving purposes,

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2025-02-23/ty-article/.highlight/the-real-winners-of-germanys-elections-the-far-right-and-israels-netanyahu-government/00000195-3416-d09e-a3ff-751f3f650000?gift=90d1e7e272c849e0b0764b2152fed0eb

    • Psycho Milt 7.1
      24 February 2025 at 12:39 pm

      No German Kanzler would preside over a leader of the Jewish state either being refused a visit or arrested by German officials, that's just a given. The optics would be completely unacceptable. Netanyahu could engage in Putin levels of crime and still be able to visit Germany.

      I also won't be surprised if other European govts aren't privately expressing interest in Trump's Gaza hand grenade. It may be unworkable, but at least it's something different – apart from Trump, everyone seems to be working on the principle they'll just pay for Gaza to be rebuilt (again) so that Hamas leaders can buy luxury apartments in Qatar (again), and get down to planning attacks on Israel (again). No Israeli govt is going to let that happen.

      • tWig 7.1.1
        24 February 2025 at 1:32 pm

        Netanyahu could engage in Putin levels of crime…Netanyahu has engaged in Hitler levels of crime.

        • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 2:13 pm

          Well, that we're never going to agree on! Netanyahu may be a pretty horrible person and a greater-Israel enthusiast, but comparisons even with Putin would be overblown, let alone Hitler.

  8. joe90 8
    24 February 2025 at 11:23 am

    Readying themselves for a bit of robber-baroning.

    .

    https://bsky.app/profile/fpwellman.bsky.social/post/3lirudabqbc2o

    Last night after business hours Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account the firing of Chairman-of-the-Joint Chief’s General C.Q. Brown and replacement with recently retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel ‘Razin’ Caine. The move had been signaled for some time but the naming of a retired officer that Trump has praised for years was a surprise.

    That wasn’t the really dark part.

    Shortly afterwards, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a press release announcing that in addition to Brown they were relieving Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Jim Slife as well. Once again, it is absolutely shocking to see the first woman to lead a service fired but in the end wholly not surprising from the smearing of her we’ve seen for years from Hegseth and his MAGA bros.

    Again, that wasn’t the really dark part.

    https://fpwellman.substack.com/p/this-is-the-most-dangerous-move-yet?

  9. SPC 9
    24 February 2025 at 11:24 am

    Home insurance has been going up because of private insurers have been re-assessing risk upwards and covering rising re-build costs.

    Now its the turn of the state.

    Home owners could be asked to fork out up to about $400 more a year to prop up the country’s state disaster insurer.

    The EQC levy is now called the Natural Hazards Insurance Levy.

    They are seeking feedback on the amount of cover provided by the levy for residential buildings (currently $345,000 to $460,000 including GST).

    Treasury, in its consultation document, warned the NHC is so underfunded, there’s only a 37% chance its levy income will meet its costs over the next five years.

    The NHC must cover the first $2.1 billion of claims related to an event before it can tap into the $8.2b of reinsurance cover it has. However, it only has $550 million in its kitty.

    https://archive.li/EUx73#selection-4011.150-4011.159

  10. tc 10
    24 February 2025 at 11:37 am

    WINZ just hung up based on high demand, no call back offered. Is this usual ?

    • SPC 10.1
      24 February 2025 at 11:49 am

      It will be under this government, more so in winter.

    • weka 10.2
      24 February 2025 at 1:53 pm

      normally they just make you wait an hour before they answer.

      A curse on the people who originally set up call centre culture in NZ. It's way worse now and getting even more worse by the day, and it doesn't have to be.

    • weka 10.3
      24 February 2025 at 1:53 pm

      normally they just make you wait an hour before they answer.

      A curse on the people who originally set up call centre culture in NZ. It's way worse now and getting even more worse by the day, and it doesn't have to be.

      • bwaghorn 10.3.1
        24 February 2025 at 4:29 pm

        Shit even our struggling medical center managers a call back service, if winz arnt doing this they're either usless or just bein wankers.

        • weka 10.3.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 4:52 pm

          probably the longest call centre wait in NZ. That's a feature not a bug, and reflects how the government treats beneficiaries generally.

          I do find the staff pretty good in the call centre, the problem is with whoever designed the system, and I assume the funding.

  12. Ad 12
    24 February 2025 at 1:04 pm

    With the German election results in, we're about to find out what a Europe fully separated from the US could be.

    Will AfD be invited to government coalition?

    What about BSD?

    Or Greens?

    The strong version of Europe is over for now.

    • SPC 12.1
      24 February 2025 at 1:58 pm

      Will AfD be invited to government coalition?

      No. This has already been stated by the next Chancellor.

      It will be a grand coalition. Possibly a minority one.

      • SPC 12.1.1
        24 February 2025 at 3:46 pm

        It appears the grand coalition (CDU-CSU AND SPD) will have a majority (if BSW join FDP in failing to make the 5% thresh-hold).

        • Bearded Git 12.1.1.1
          24 February 2025 at 11:14 pm

          CDU CSU and SDP have 328 seats according to latest figures…316 needed for a majority.

          That may be workable but it would probably make sense to invite the Greens on board too.

      • satty 12.2.1
        24 February 2025 at 2:40 pm

        Yes, as a (former) German, I saw immediately, the old West and East German borders. Couple of thoughts:

        The re-unification did simply not deliver for the Eastern working class, probably not for the middle-class.

        All three ex-government parties had significant losses, while all other parties gained. The main gains are on the right of SPD (centre-left) – CDU & AfD – and the remaining on far-left – Linke & BSW – with the later not making the 5% threshold. FDP and their chief-idiot Lindner got what they deserved.

        East Germany wants AfD to govern, while West Germany wants CDU to govern. Neither wants SPD / Green Party in government.

        So either

        CDU offers a coalition with AfD, which would reflect the will of the voters (East & West), somehow "keep the AfD under control" and significantly improve the lives of the workers and lower middle-class over the next years

        or

        we see significant further growth of AfD in the coming years, probably becoming largest party in Germany within a year. (I wouldn't be surprised this is the AfD's preferred option).

        Or go completely crazy: Split Germany back into East and West, and put up the fences and walls up again. Everyone can choose on which side they want to live.

  13. joe90 13
    24 February 2025 at 1:47 pm

    a song about rebellion and revolution…lol..

    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing a song of angry men?
    It is the music of a people
    Who will not be slaves again
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes

  14. SPC 14
    24 February 2025 at 2:24 pm

    In the year 2025 the world changed.

    2025 could be year for the history books as Trump shreds global norms

    John Simpson

    World Affairs Editor

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ng4eyr3xo

    He has a point. For mine I would refer to two cause and effect cycles.

    1.Bay of Pigs and then (USSR missiles out of Cuba and USA ones out of Turkey) and then to 1989 (1986 agreement on missiles out of Europe and then the end of the USSR in eastern Europe.

    2.NATO involvement in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the rejection of George Kennan's advice as to a future with Russia. And here we are.

    • aj 14.1
      24 February 2025 at 5:21 pm

      Yes – big events are preceded by other events, which may not look so consequential at the time.

      (Kennan and many, many others)

      I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers – from Kissinger to Chomsky – who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).

      The first one is George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700719253685678286.html

      Kissinger: The cunning of reason

      "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its pretences. It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident."

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855304997485088870.html

  15. Paul Huggett 15
    24 February 2025 at 4:59 pm

    18 comments already. However:

    Bayley goneburger

    Oh dear, how sad, never mind. And to think his pharts were considerably c o n s i d e r a b l y CONSIDERABLY more redolent than mine.

    It's just a travesty n'est ce pas?

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]