Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Charlie's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Jeremy Graeme
24 comments
Longspeak

@JeremyGraeme @cstross Oh it'll be a nightmare. The people opposed to him will just shrug and let him fuck over the nation. I'm not worried about that because every indicator I've seen says the support isn't there. I'm worried about after because every indicator I've seen suggest the asshole will foment insurrection again.

3 November at 20:39 | Open on chirp.enworld.org
Charlie Stross

@Longspeak @JeremyGraeme

If Trump wins, world war three will break out within 18 months.

I'm not joking.

He'll throw Ukraine under the Russian tank tracks, encouraging Putin. Who will roll into Moldova and then Poland and the Baltic Republics and maybe even Finland, because when the only tool you've got is a war machine everything looks like a target. Putin wants to rebuild the old Russian empire: which means NATO will be at war.

3 November at 20:43 | Open on wandering.shop
LisPi
@cstross @JeremyGraeme @Longspeak Any reason someone wouldn't finally manage to knock him off the board before that?
3 November at 21:13 | Open on udongein.xyz
Bruno Nicoletti

@cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme That’s assuming there still is a NATO 18 months after a Trump
win. He’s already made noises about walking away from the alliance. Not that it wouldn’t still be a shitshow with a nuclear armed France and UK.

3 November at 21:14 | Open on mstdn.social
gavinisdie :troll:

@bjn @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme it will probably still exist, but qithout the US

3 November at 21:42 | Open on masto.ai
Glen Turner

@gavinisdie @bjn @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme NATO requires all members to agree. So NATO will be siderailled into a standards-setting organisation and a EU+ will become the main force for security in Europe.

It's bad for the US because the US's ongoing national security will then depend on the actions of a European-only group. The US would have to ask nicely that a EU+ not risk a Russia nuclear exchange with the US, perhaps threatened because EU+ forces are approaching Moscow. Whereas in NATO the US can insist.

@gavinisdie @bjn @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme NATO requires all members to agree. So NATO will be siderailled into a standards-setting organisation and a EU+ will become the main force for security in Europe.

It's bad for the US because the US's ongoing national security will then depend on the actions of a European-only group. The US would have to ask nicely that a EU+ not risk a Russia nuclear exchange with the US, perhaps threatened because EU+ forces are approaching Moscow. Whereas in NATO...

4 November at 0:18 | Open on aus.social
Unprecedented 2023
Em :anarchistflagblack:

@bjn @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme the NATO still has Mexico and Canada tbh...

4 November at 8:04 | Open on lsbt.me
Alisdair Calder McGregor
DELETED

@A_C_McGregor @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme I would guess a slightly longer timescale. Even without US support it will take Russia some time to take full control of Ukraine and be ready to move on. Ukraine did remarkably well in Putin's supposedly three day war, even before it had major arms shipments, and Europe could likely move faster than it has been. And while Russia's recent attritional tactics have been taking territory, they're slow; any attempts at maneuver warfare lead to massive equipment losses for tiny territorial gains.

Also, China is still relatively cautious about supplying Russia (and therefore incurring US sanctions). That is slowly changing, with China involved in drone development etc, but it involves their economic planning and also possibly the impact of Trump on trade.

While non-US NATO has more troops and a much bigger economy than Russia, and Putin has been reluctant to mobilise fully, if China wants a protracted proxy war it can easily achieve that.

Meanwhile China isn't ready to roll into Taiwan yet. It all comes together around the time of the following election: China will be ready to go into Taiwan, Russia will have finished with Ukraine and potentially be ready (though some analysts disagree), and Trump will try to rig the election in favor of his successor (or even himself), probably triggering a full scale civil war.

All of that is less likely if Harris wins. On the other hand if China is prepared to more openly support Russia, a major European war (further west) could well happen even with a relatively internationalist US president.

@A_C_McGregor @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme I would guess a slightly longer timescale. Even without US support it will take Russia some time to take full control of Ukraine and be ready to move on. Ukraine did remarkably well in Putin's supposedly three day war, even before it had major arms shipments, and Europe could likely move faster than it has been. And while Russia's recent attritional tactics have been taking territory, they're slow; any attempts at maneuver warfare lead to massive equipment...

4 November at 0:08 | Open on climatejustice.social
DELETED

@A_C_McGregor @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme But since it'd probably be a European war rather than a full blown world war, and since neither side can afford to use nukes (they cancel out), it still arguably matters less than the impact of another Trump presidency on climate change.

4 November at 0:11 | Open on climatejustice.social
DELETED

@A_C_McGregor @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme The above is not intended to mean that I support "the west", the political status quo, capitalism, and especially not Israel's current policy on Gaza.

Biden's unconditional support of Israel no matter what is a serious threat to what is left of international law, and to Europe, because it proves what the rest of the world suspected for historical and recent reasons all along: we're the bad guys, "international law" only applies to our enemies.

That makes it easier for Putin to win in Ukraine, and potentially in the rest of Europe. It drives material support, often in the form of sanctions busting.

Unfortunately the US and Israel do not have a monopoly on imperialism or even genocide (though Putin has killed far fewer children than Netanyahu).

Maybe things will change under Harris. But they will certainly get worse if it's Trump.

@A_C_McGregor @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme The above is not intended to mean that I support "the west", the political status quo, capitalism, and especially not Israel's current policy on Gaza.

Biden's unconditional support of Israel no matter what is a serious threat to what is left of international law, and to Europe, because it proves what the rest of the world suspected for historical and recent reasons all along: we're the bad guys, "international law" only applies to our enemies.

4 November at 1:00 | Open on climatejustice.social
:blahaj: Why Not Zoidberg? 🦑

@cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme

I do not enjoy the idea of dying on the front line defending Stockholm from a Russian invasion because some idiot believes that Trump will save Palestine.

(I consider his core base irredeemable, they would vote for Cthulhu if he promised them unlimited-racism-for-fun.)

3 November at 21:35 | Open on topspicy.social
DrGeraintLLannfrancheta

@cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme close to the truth. But #nato would fall apart sooner. When he is elected Europe's nuclear sharing is dead. War will be there sooner. And guess wgat: as A German i'am cynically looking forward to it. Because we lazy Europeans, especially Germans wasted 900 bn peace dividend for nothing. For building eastern German now all voting nazis again. So ffs: le there be misery. WW2 gen is dead, the circle needs to start again. Poor animals though.

3 November at 22:05 | Open on nafo.army
Бджілка робе кусь 🇺🇦🇮🇱🏳️‍🌈

@cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme

It's worse than that. World war 3 has already started and it's being fought not only by tanks, but mostly by propaganda. Russia can't afford full scale hot war with civilized world, but IT DOESN'T NEED TO. It will elect politicians for you who will hand your allies, your power and influence to it without a fight. Each new fascist clown you elect weakens democracy even further and encourages tyranny. And it sends a clear signal that THIS WORKS. Fight back.

3 November at 22:22 | Open on ukrainian.network
Тукс добрий

@bjeelka @cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme

This exactly! Plus for the goddamn sake the world invented LLMs (which are fraudulently called AI) and is pouring unimaginable amounts of money to this fraud, fraud which is good only for one damn thing - powering propaganda bots. 🙁

I heard on slashdot.com recently that this year alone this fake "AI" got 200 BILLION dollars in investments. With this money Ukrainian tanks would be in Moscow... and instead this money literally helps ruzzians win.

3 November at 22:37 | Open on mastodon.social
Angela Scholder
Івась Тарасик

@cstross i'm sorry but i have to disagree with one point in your prediction: that putin wants to go at war against nato as soon as he deals with ukraine. i would have ignored it, but unfortunately it comes up so often, and it's a dangerous idea --- not because it will happen, but exactly because it will not thus permitting the west to relax when the moment will be exactly the worst to do so.

putin has no interest in attacking eu or nato, and he's playing a very precise game to come as close as possible so as to make you all panic, because as we've all seen in 1938 and in 2008 and 2014 and 2022 panic doesn't make west act agressively but instead to close the eyes and play pacification as long as possible, ideally indefinitely.

from europe putin wants money, and as soon as enough of ukraine is occupied to provide russia with exit to the black sea and to make the rest of ukraine (granted, as little as possible) irrelevant, the european money can be had with the support of hungary, slovakia and some creative help to exteme right, left to create enough pressure to keep the rest occupied.

from usa putin (or his elders further east) want just enough impotent statements to keep eternal america haters in the east and africa mobilized.

a war against nato would actually save nato. putin understands it. there will be no war with nato, even after (if) ukraine is finished. and that's exactly when you'll know you (we) are all doomed --- when there is still no war =(

sorry.

@cstross i'm sorry but i have to disagree with one point in your prediction: that putin wants to go at war against nato as soon as he deals with ukraine. i would have ignored it, but unfortunately it comes up so often, and it's a dangerous idea --- not because it will happen, but exactly because it will not thus permitting the west to relax when the moment will be exactly the worst to do so.

3 November at 22:57 | Open on social.net.ua
Unprecedented 2023
peachfront

@cstross @Longspeak @JeremyGraeme

this is what i think too

Trump's as much as said he will abandon first Ukraine & then NATO

4 November at 0:58 | Open on toot.community
JJDavis :terminal:
ProScience

@cstross

Perhaps not 18 months but I agree with the general gist:

Putin will run out of men soon but he'll bomb the mentioned states and others regardless, aiming to kill as many Western humans and destroy as much of the EU infrastructure as possible.

4 November at 11:04 | Open on toot.community
Maier Amsden

@Longspeak @JeremyGraeme @cstross Past behavior is a solid predictor of future behavior. Also, he's already pre-couping, so hopefully it'll just be like a bad joke told one too many times when he yells "rigged" for the 6,000th time in a week.

3 November at 21:44 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up