Power and Geopolitics After Trump - Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman
SubscribeSign in
Playback speed
1×
Subtitles
Share post
Share post at current time
Share from 0:00
/
Transcript
SPEAKER 1
Hi everyone. Instead of a regular post today, I'm going to put up a video. There are a number of reasons why I feel like doing that instead of views. One of them is that this is a dry run for a talk that I will be giving virtually later today.
There's a conference on the economics of digital transformation taking place in Croatia, although I'll be doing it remotely. And they have asked me to write about global power, geoeconomics, and Europe. So those are all themes that I've been thinking about quite a lot. And today's miniature talk is an opportunity to try talking through those themes.
And the way I want to structure it is as what has changed, at least in the way that we all now understand the world, since, well, basically since Donald Trump returned to power. That's an American-centric point of view, if you like, but it's kind of a natural bracket.
1,778
315
280
Power and Geopolitics After Trump
A preview of a talk I'm giving
Jun 18, 2026
1,778
315
280
Transcript
Transcript
Hi everyone. Instead of a regular post today, I’m going to put up a video. There are a number of reasons why I feel like doing that instead of the usual. One of them is that this is a dry run for a talk that I will be giving virtually later today.
There’s a conference on the economics of digital transformation taking place in Croatia, although I’ll be doing it remotely. And they have asked me to talk about global power, geoeconomics, and Europe. Those are all themes that I’ve been thinking about quite a lot. And today’s miniature talk is an opportunity to try talking through those themes.
And the way I want to structure it is as what has changed, at least in the way that we all now understand the world, since, well, basically since Donald Trump returned to power. That’s an American-centric point of view, if you like, but it’s kind of a natural bracket.
And of course, everything really has changed, mostly not for the better, under Trump. And it has, as it turns out, big implications for Europe as well. So let me just try to get into that.
Start by talking about the world as it seemed to be at the beginning of 2025.
There were, and still are, three great economic superpowers in the world: China, the United States, and the European Union, in that order. If we measure GDP in 2024 at purchasing power parity, which is basically just adjusting for differences in national price levels, you had China with a GDP of something like $37 trillion, the United States with something like 29 trillion and the EU with something like 28 trillion. That last bit may be a bit of a surprise — maybe all of it is a surprise to some people — but yes, in terms of the actual amount of stuff it produces the Chinese economy is now substantially bigger than the US economy. And the European economy is almost the same size as the US economy. If you think that Europe is backward and poor and helplessly dependent, it’s not. It is an economic superpower.
And in fact, by this measure, Europe has basically maintained this position of being about comparable to the United States for a long time. This is a whole other topic that I’ve been writing about and will continue to write about in the future.
In that world, basically, two things were really kind of striking. One is that the United States seemed to perceive itself as being a dominant power, even though China was bigger and even though Europe was about the same size, and Europe acted as if it seemed to perceive itself as not being in the same league, as being not a superpower at all. All of that may be changing, and events are part of the reason, so let’s talk about the events.
Now, the most obvious: the United States just lost a war. Just lost it bigly, as Trump used to say. It’s an astonishing story. We went up against Iran, which was definitely not a major military power or a major economic power, a sort of middle-ranked power, if that, and utterly failed to achieve our war goals.
In the process, we inflicted a lot of damage on the world economy and depleted our stocks of high-tech weapons that will take years to replace. Altogether, immense damage was inflicted on Iran, but Iran has clearly emerged stronger. The United States has emerged humiliated.
The attempts by Trump and minions to pretend that it was a victory don’t help. They only make the United States look not just humiliated but delusional.
So that’s a big deal. It has large implications for US power and influence going forward as well. To explain those implications, it’s helpful to talk about one of the other things that really dramatically changed with Trump coming back into office, which was trade policy.
The United States began really seriously trying to throw its weight around. Liberation Day, the tariffs on everybody, basically trying to pressure all of the world into giving us various kinds of concessions. Give us what we want or we won’t let you sell in our market and everybody needs to sell in our market.
Okay, what we learned from now well over a year of trade war is that U.S. power in that dimension is substantially less than certainly than Trump appeared to believe it was. And just in general, trade, leverage and trade negotiations, leverage in trade disputes has less to do with market access than a lot of people assumed and more to do with supply chains, with getting stuff that you use in your economy, means of production, not in the sense of capital, but intermediate inputs or just inputs in general. The nation that has more ability to strangle its rivals by cutting off supply chains is the one that has the upper hand.
So it turns out, and we had already learned this from the trade stuff, that China with its dominant position in rare earths and some other crucial industrial materials actually had a stronger hand than the United States. Yes, we have a big market, but loss of a market can be offset to some extent by domestic stimulus, domestic support programs. Not having crucial industrial materials is not so easy to make up for. So we learned that the power in international trade disputes in a fundamental sense reflects power over supply, not power over demand, which is something economists have always tried to say.
The point of trade is not to sell. The point of trade is to get stuff. You sell as a way to pay for things that you get from other countries. But now we have it demonstrated very obviously in real life. So that in itself meant that we’ve had a blow to the perception of US power. It turns out the US market is not almighty; access to the US market is not anything like as powerful a tool as we thought and Chinese strangleholds over key inputs are much more important.
And then of course we’ve seen that even more graphically demonstrated by war with Iran and it turns out that Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was a really huge empowering point, and it was the kind of thing that the United States really didn’t think about, and certainly the Trump administration didn’t think about.
And it shows the true rules of global economic power, because largely Iran was able to win this war through economic power rather than strictly military action, the rules of economic power are not what a lot of people thought they were.
Who benefits from that? Well, obviously China. What we’ve seen now is that in terms of a global power competition, China has demonstrated that they have substantial power over supply chains. They’ve also demonstrated that they can weather a cutoff of oil pretty well.
And global power is a zero-sum game. So the United States, by weakening itself, by showing that we don’t have the ability to impose our will militarily, we don’t even have the ability to keep international shipping routes open, has emerged as just a much less formidable player, which means that China by comparison looks better. Add to that the fact that the United States has been erratic and unreliable. Our current leadership just doesn’t understand that a reputation for doing what you promised, honoring your agreements, is itself a source of power, and we have done an enormous amount to undermine that. Not news to anybody.
Trump looks much weaker. America looks much weaker. To a certain extent, China is the beneficiary of all that, at least in terms of power.
Now, of course, life is not all about power. And in the end, you don’t run a country to maximize global power. Maybe the Chinese do. I’m not sure about that. But in any case, it’s not a zero-sum game in terms of living. But in terms of power, it is a zero-sum game. And the United States share of that power, however you measure it, is clearly down as a result of the war.
Europe is a little bit interesting here. Europe played essentially no role in any of this. Europe wasn’t involved, obviously, in the war. Europe didn’t do very much at all except to suffer. Still, one thing that is kind of important is that Europe — at least to some degree, not really through emergency responses but just through the general way that the Hormuz shock played out — Europe demonstrated or some European countries demonstrated that they can be much more independent of global hydrocarbon resources than they have been.
Europe is not a major oil producing area. It has some, but not a lot. It’s not a major gas producing area anymore. It’s essentially a very resource poor economy relative to the size of its GDP, relative to its population. But it is an economy that increasingly relies on renewable energy. And those countries that have gone especially far in relying on renewables weathered this really well. That’s the lesson of Spain’s ability to ride through this with very little rise in electricity costs compared with some other countries. Italy, which has very little in the way of renewables and is very heavily reliant on natural gas for electricity generation, Italy did much worse.
But Spain has given an illustration of how the renewable energy revolution — solar plus batteries is what really runs Spain now — has made Europe more independent and can make it more independent still in a world economy where control of natural resources used to be really critical and it’s becoming increasingly less critical.
So that’s actually a point in Europe’s favor. That’s one piece Another piece of this is that Europe has always, in my lifetime, literally, and from a bit before my lifetime, Europe has always been far less of a global power player than you would expect given its sheer economic weight.
Now that’s partly because Europe doesn’t exist as a political entity. though it’s more of one than it used to be; the common market has gradually turned into something more than that and Europe is able in some important ways to operate as one and is finding ad hoc ways of cooperating more. But it was always in a secondary position very much — or tertiary position given the rise of China — largely because the United States in addition to having a big economy was overwhelmingly the dominant military force.
Now until just the other day there was never a question that the United States would use its military force against Europe; but Europe depended on the United States. Europe’s defense, its security, all depended on the United States.
Okay, now where are we? The United States is quite simply just less credible as a security guarantor, not just because of crazy stuff where we threaten Denmark over Greenland, and not just because we’re erratic all the time, but because we’ve just demonstrated that our military capability is a lot less than we thought it was. The United States could not batter Iran into doing what it wanted. It could not keep the Strait of Hormuz open. So U.S. military preeminence is a lot less intimidating, also a lot less reassuring if you thought you had America on your good side than it used to be.
And on the other hand the prospect that Europe might be able to defend itself, achieve its own security without the United States, looks a lot stronger than it did not very long ago. And that’s not just because of the war in Iran but also because of the war in Ukraine.
Now, there are many, many horrifying things that have happened under Trump. One of the ones that is particularly horrifying to some of us is the abandonment of Ukraine, the clear tilt towards siding with Putin in his attempt to destroy a democratic nation. The United States basically stopped giving any aid to Ukraine at all. almost as soon as Trump took office. U.S. aid of all kinds, but especially, of course, military aid, is all gone.
But a funny thing has happened. Ukraine is still standing. If anything, the war seems to be tilting in its direction. Now, that reflects partly the fact that Europe did step up. particularly with economic aid: Europe has filled the gap, pretty much, that the United States left so the flow of money to Ukraine continues.
But it’s also because war has changed. To the extent that the United States appeared to be essential it wasn’t just the money — we knew that Europe could come up with some money — but it appeared that what would what How could Ukraine defend itself without U.S. weapons?
Well, it turns out that in this age of drone warfare that Ukraine can mostly defend itself. Actually, what they can’t really stop is Russian missiles that destroy civilian targets, which is horrifying, but it doesn’t appear to really work in terms of altering the military balance.
And Ukraine has developed its own suite of weapons, and quite aside from the fact that Ukraine is hanging in there, this says that one of the sources of perceived US superpower status— super duper power? versus Europe is a mere superpower? — was that, well, we had the weapons, that we had the technology, that even if Europe could come up with the money, they needed U.S. weapons to be effective, as did Ukraine. And if the United States cut off the flow of weapons, what could you do? You really could not stand without all of those sophisticated, high-tech weapons that only the United States knew how to produce.
Well, those weapons are kind of looking obsolete right now. Not entirely, but we just saw Iran do a lot of damage with drones that the United States didn’t appear prepared to stop. And the United States, with all of its super-duper weapons, was not able to suppress them.
We had the spectacle of million-dollar patriots shooting down $30,000 Shaheds. This is not a good look. And Ukraine has become a major arms producer ,has become in many ways the expert in this new age of drone warfare. The Europeans are picking up some of that, and there’s a lot of new cooperation on weapons with Ukraine.
But maybe the most important thing to say is that, well, that special U.S. advantage, because we had the weapons and no one else did, it’s not much of an advantage now that it appears that those weapons are largely obsolete.
Not totally, of course. The Ukrainians would really love to get more Patriot missiles to stop some of those Russian missiles that are destroying 11th century churches and so on. But the balance has shifted in a way that means that the United States is not indispensable at any level. We’re not indispensable financially, and we’re not even indispensable militarily. It’s like we have the world’s best cavalry in an age of machine guns. What good does that do?
Okay the Chinese presumably have immense capacity. Chinese dominance of manufacturing means that on almost any dimension China is the super super duper power, they’re really way out in front. But there’s much more parity between between Europe and the United States than there was because the United States doesn’t really have economic dominance and we don’t have military dominance anymore. We dominated an age of warfare that now appears to be behind us.
So where does Europe stand here?
In a rational world, the rise of China and the coordinated, concerted, efforts of the United States and Europe to deal with that rise would be the central story of geopolitics in the year 2026. Unfortunately, things are not rational. And so we have a belligerent, erratic United States with Europe largely on its own.
But Europe being on its own is not nearly as impossible to imagine as it used to be. This is a world that has tilted towards China. That’s probably the biggest story. But it is also, in effect, tilted towards Europe because it’s tilted away from us here in the United States.
Take care.
1,778 Likes∙
Discussion about this video
CommentsRestacks
I am not an American, but I have always admired one aspect of American culture: the willingness to question, challenge, and debate ideas instead of simply accepting them.
People like you are part of the reason why I find America fascinating. One thing I especially hope to learn from you is how to remain calm while expressing a critical voice. That combination of intellectual honesty and composure is something I deeply respect.
I also believe that only ideas that are continuously tested and challenged can endure over the long run.
So today, I would like to be a little brave and leave my own comment as well.
Thank you for your videos today and for inspiring so many people around the world to think more carefully.
Like (219)
Reply (4)
“how to remain calm while expressing a critical voice. That combination of intellectual honesty and composure is something I deeply respect.” I feel the same respect for PK and why I am drawn to his daily posts. His “rants and “raves” are calm and informative voicing of things that deeply matter
Like (66)
Reply (1)
You’re absolutely right.
One of the reasons I admire Professor Krugman is that, despite being such a renowned scholar, he continues to share his views publicly. I believe that his willingness to speak out is meaningful in itself.
Like (56)
Reply
The qualities you list are quintessentially American. Trump and his fools lack them. That, in brief, is the entire problem. They make mistakes and then double down on them, because they think one is strong if one forces one’s will upon others. This is, sadly, another American quality, the underlying essence of our culture wars. Thought and knowledge should prevail, but belief and impression are currently ruling instead.
Like (20)
Reply
Just would like to point out that Prof. Krugman sums up the present state of economic play better than the media voices and certainly the paid governmental figures, no pun intended. In this quality of honest clarity, he compares with Keynes of a bygone prelude to political decline and disaster. While I do not comment on the two economists’ relative power of vision, both could or can write with truth and clarity. This is a service to general international moral stability.
Like (13)
Reply
Thank you. I have so much respect and gratitude for what you just did. I count on you and you have again made things clear in my mind.
Like (7)
Reply
"…a reputation for doing what you promised, honoring your agreements…" tops the list of qualities that the 6-time bankruptee/US president does NOT have.
Like (124)
Reply (2)
6d Edited
Girl Scouts of America (GSA) have their priorities straight. No wonder Mackenzie Scott donated more than 84M. It’s an investment in the future of our nation.
Girl Scout Promise:
On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law.
(Note: Members may substitute for the word "God" in accordance with their own spiritual beliefs)
To support the Promise, Girl Scouts also recite the Law, which outlines the daily actions and character traits they strive to embody:
I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.
Like (76)
Reply (3)
the boys' side, and perhaps the girls', used to speak of Scout's Honor (or in the original, Honour). Nobody ever speaks of Trump's honor. That is, as the logicians say, a null class.
Like (35)
Reply (1)
I like that.
Applying computer jargon to morality.
Or in Trump & company's case, amorality
Like
Reply
The Girl Scouts is a great organization. They had volunteers come to my inner city school on a weekly basis. For most of the girls it was their first experience with an organized activity outside of school, or for a few, church.
However, I did Girl Scouts with one of my daughters and they've developed a crazy set of rules. Constant training and innumerable paperwork. The administration was awful and killed what could have been a positive experience. I hated the Girl Scout cookie sales. That seemed to be the overwhelming theme, sell, sell, sell. Supposedly, it was to teach business to the girls but it was a terrible return on investment.
I hope they can step back and become more focused on actual kid centered experiences and get rid of the binders and binders of training. It was like they'd been taken over by Pearson the textbook/testing giant.
Like (9)
Reply (2)
As a life member of Girl Scouts, I agree with you to some extent on the suffocation of some of the trainings, although I think some folks appreciate the opportunity to learn/refresh skills.
As to cookie sales, my daughter and most of the troop she was in credit their experience in selling cookies for their success in life, and that's not nothing.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
Debbie Reynolds was a life member too. It was written into her contracts that, once each week, she was excused from rehearsals to change into her uniform and lead her troop. https://gsgcfblog.org/2017/01/03/a-tribute-to-debbie-reynolds-and-carrie-fisher/
Like (4)
Reply
I was a Girl Scout and a Girl Scout Treasurer for my daughters. Couldn't agree more that cookie sales were a terrible return on the investment. Girl Scout troops received a small amount of the money from cookie sales. Told my daughters that Girl Scouts apparently wanted them to get used to make .80 on the dollar. Boy Scout troops received 50% of popcorn sales.
Girl Scouts provided great opportunities for my daughters. The camping and the orienteering were their favorites.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
I like the Girl Scout organization. I'd like to see some reforms because it's good.
As someone who has always camped, and backpacked...running everyone through the same long, dull training, full of rules and regulations, was a big damper to me. Yeah, someone might get a case of poison oak but car camping isn't very risky...uncomfortable yes.
Like
Reply
i WAS A Girl Scout in my youth. I was also a Mom and Grandmother who helped with the Scouts. Also I had Boys Scouts. Took Scouts to see the Oval Office years ago when we could sign a book and get in to the WH and Cap. All gone now by the acts of our Officals. SAd for the youth of today.
Like (1)
Reply
Exactly. Trump has broken so many international deals of late that his signature and his word are worthless… Who would trust him at this juncture? Do we think more highly of the murderous Iranian regime? Who would trust them either?
And by declaring this lightweight memo as anything but surrender, Trump takes us for fools. Like we can’t see he’s desperate to get back to the day before his pointless war started, when Iran was offering *more* in their negotiations?
This “deal” is massive financial concessions (countless “pallets of cash” to Iran) in order to get the Strait open again, almost certainly with tolls coming soon ("no charge for 60 days only") on shipping.
Meanwhile, the nuclear can is kicked down the road and Trump would be incredibly lucky at this point to get something even half as good as Obama’s JCPOA that he stupidly tore up.
That was a real deal that took 18 months to carefully negotiate and was 159 pages of highly technical detail. Iran eliminated 97% of its enriched uranium stockpile and accepted the most rigorous and invasive international verification regime in history. Over 100 IAEA inspectors continuously monitored Iran via 24/7 surveillance cameras, high-tech sensors, and daily on-the-ground inspections for up to 25 years.
Trump blew it and he knows it, which is why he has to keep bashing and lying about the JCPOA.
Like (44)
Reply (4)
6d Edited
The worst damage of all this is that Trumpkopf, acting as the top representative of the US, has shown the world that we have no guardrails in place to prevent a president from arbitrarily dishonoring any agreement ratified by congress.
Thus, Trumpkopf has defenestrated our trustworthiness and credibility, at least until such time that constitutional guardrails are put in place to prevent such abuses from being inflicted on us and our allies ever again.
Like (39)
Reply (2)
6d Edited
When those guardrails are installed, add one that prevents SCOTUS from deciding the constitutionality of anything.
Like (8)
Reply (2)
That would make the SCOTUS obsolete. What we need to do is make SCJ's elected nationally instead of appointed. Of course, that would require an amendment.
Like (4)
Reply (2)
SC justices need to be term limited to about 10 years or so also.
Like (3)
Reply
Not as I understand it. According to a recent article in the Times, the Constitution says that the purpose of SCOTUS is to decide what laws mean. Not to decide if they're constitutional or not.
Like (1)
Reply (2)
The constitution are the base laws, on which all other laws are based. (directly or indirectly)
So that means deciding if laws are in contradiction with the constitution.
Otherwise a dictator could have any laws passed, even if they directly contradict the constitution.
For instance, making Trump president for life.
Or giving him the power to appoint the next president.
Like (2)
Reply
Unfortunately, I don't have a paid subscription to the NYT, so I can't read that article. If you could copy and past the relevant portion(s) I'd appreciate it.
Also unfortunately, Article III only mentions "judicial power" - without actually defining it - along with "jurisdiction".
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Like (1)
Reply (1)
What Bouie is saying here is that the SCOTUS isn't the sole arbiter of the constitution - which I agree with. Constitutional authority is distributed. The key phrase Bouie writes is "...the question of meaning is as much the purview of the public as it is the job of a jurist".
In short, the SCOTUS does determine constitutionality, but that decision isn't binding - if the political will is there to challenge it.
Like (3)
Reply
That would defeat their purpose. Trump would like that.
Like (1)
Reply
Unfortunately, after this debacle, nobody in any responsible position will believe anything the US says, no matter what the "guardrails" are, because they know that the guardrails can be simply ignored. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Like (6)
Reply (1)
True. We need a strong mechanism to enforce those guardrails.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Including guardrails.
Like
Reply (1)
Of course perfection is unrealistic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. It doesn't mean we can't improve things. We can, and we should.
Like (2)
Reply
Actually, he does not know it. That's a big part of the problem; he has no powers of self-scrutiny.
Like (8)
Reply (1)
Disagree. The con man knows the con.
It's what he's done his whole life.
Like (4)
Reply
This guy has a very good (and humorous) take on the deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leTB6m8LYaM
And the Times reports that Trump says he will blame it all on Vance.
Like (5)
Reply
Does Trump really believe he blew it? I am at all sure he does as he is deluded and is surrounded with sycophants who appear unable or even dare challenge him or tell him the truth. So much so that his cronies walk around in shoes the wrong size because Trump bought them. I found Starmer toadying around Trump utterly nauseating and then King Charles having to host a visit from this thug even more sickening. I, now, think the world might be waking up and moving away from America and realising that relying on the US is a really bad move and self-dependence is essential. America is untrustworthy, has soiled reputation and it's really declining. Fossil fuels will no longer be needed as alternatives will be used more and more frequently, which is a necessity. Trump has done so much damage to the US but the American public have yet to see it, hopefully, they will see it before their decline becomes permanent.
Like
Reply
I think what Iran has shown us and the world in general is that the concept of war is obsolete. Economy is now more powerful than bombs.
Like (64)
Reply (5)
6d Edited
"it turns out that Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was a really huge empowering point, and it was the kind of thing that the United States really didn’t think about, and certainly the Trump administration didn’t think about."
And it's infuriating to know that other administrations most certainly DID think about that, because they chose diplomacy over wholesale bombing, and came away with effective sanctions and the JCPOA.
Then we got this administration, who disdain expertise, and where the "smartest" guys are still two bricks short of a load, and they swaggered their way straight into a humiliating quagmire which is going to cost US TAXPAYERS close to a trillion dollars by the time Trump slithers away.
The Republican "brand" is now officially rotten (time to 86 the lot!), thanks to their cowardly, stupid actions.
Like (64)
Reply (4)
The Republican brand, apparently - but the MAGA Christian Nationalist brand?
Like (14)
Reply (1)
There are a lot of meatheads in this country.
Like (22)
Reply
the pentagon knew the strait would close but the orange asshat refused to listen to them unless they were cowards and did not tell him or his sycophants including hegseth
Like (13)
Reply (1)
Remember who Trump put in charge of the pentagon. Just as ignorant as Trump.
Like (4)
Reply
There are a lot of advantages of negociation over force, even if Iran wasn't able to block the strait.
Iran had already affirmed that they didn't want the nuclear weapon. They had signed the non-proliferation treaty many years before.
The 2015 Europe-US-Iran accord was just to clarify this, and Trump withdrew from the accord, causing this stupid problem.
The advantages of a not-too-bright ignoramous as president.
Like (2)
Reply
Yes! This was my one quibble with this piece. It *had* been thought about.
Like (2)
Reply
War does not solve problems; it creates new, often deeper and unintended, problems. Starting a war is worse: look at all the major wars in the last century that have been lost [usually badly] by those who started them.
Like (6)
Reply
I think it may be more accurate to say using violence is now different. Evolutionary behaviors along with drones and hate are describing a very dangerous world.
Like (2)
Reply
Not so. If you are willing to throw a large number of troops backed by an industrialized economy at seizing territory, you can still be successful at doing so. The bigger picture is that this generally isn’t terribly profitable. Obsolete, and unprofitable aren't quite the same thing.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
1d Edited
Even that's debatable. Russia has thrown a huge number of troops backed by its industrial might (with significant help from China) and has largely failed to achieve its aims.
Like
Reply
There are still more than enough bombs out there to assure mutual destruction. Sample - https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/underwater-detonation-23-kiloton-nuclear-weapon/
My father was at the Eniwetok tests. These - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greenhouse. I still have the goggles that he was issued for those.
If you view those photos, keep in mind that these were atomic bombs. The hydrogen bomb had not been created yet.
Like
Reply (2)
One thing to keep in mind.
Nuclear bombs can destroy much of the infrastructure, and kill a lot of the population (mostly in targeted cities).
But even in a major nuclear war, most people would initially survive, even if sent back to the stone age.
There could be widespread famine due to the destroyed infrasture, but civilisation would rise again. It might take quite a few generations.
The down side is life would no longer be the same, for those living in targeted countries.
Like (2)
Reply (2)
As Einstein said, I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with rocks and sticks. A major nuclear war would be as bad as the Black Death.
Like (2)
Reply
Living in New Jersey, I became interested in the results of attacks on Manhattan and Philadelphia. If the largest bomb that Russia is known to possess were dropped on Manhattan and exploded at about 1,500' AGL, it would destroy any structures within 30 miles of detonation. Serious damage would be done to anything within 50 miles. But. The low level explosion would create fallout that would kill nearly everything between Manhattan and central Connecticut.
If, on the other hand, the explosion occurred at 10,000', the area of destruction would be much wider and the amount of fallout much less.
IIRC, the bombs dropped on Japan were set to explode at 8,600' because that was calculated to do the most damage to infrastructure. The effects of fallout were not really known until the Baker tests in 1951 (there are photos of sailors swabbing down the decks of surviving target ships).
Like
Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
Like
Reply
A topic that no one seems to address is ( God forbid!) what if Ukraine does not succeed in holding out and stopping Russia - if Russia captures Ukraine’s new and innovative defence capability it will drastically put Europe in greater jeopardy!
Like (41)
Reply (7)
Ukraine is doing all the heavy lifting for Europe, and Europe is complacent about it, trying to balance US and its own interests. It can't have it both ways, and it had better hope Ukraine continues to hold its own. Europe, and the US, essential abandonment of Ukraine will be a shameful chapter in the history of the past hundred years. Not to mention the qualities of Zelenskyy compared to any other world leader. Hang your head in shame.
Like (40)
Reply (3)
Actually, Europe is not at all complacent about this. They have been proactive in getting weapons to Ukraine and the EU just finalized a $106 billion aid package for Ukraine.
Like (62)
Reply (3)
The US media is being complacent. They should be giving far more attention to all the acts of sabotage Russia has been committing against the West, including acts against the US — cutting undersea cables, putting incendiary devices on planes bound for airports in the West, recruiting young men desperate for money to commit inflammatory racist acts or set fire to Keir Starmer’s properties.
“ Russia’s Shadow War Against the West”
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west
Maybe if more Americans were alerted to these facts Trump would be forced to stop bowing down to Putin like he finally has with Bibi.
Like (26)
Reply (1)
Grooming Trump for the past 40 years was one of the biggest returns on investment by the Russian secrecy agencies.
Like (22)
Reply
That's good, but not good enough. We should stop witholding capabilities from Ukraine and start relieving pressure off their northern flank by sending soldiers to the Belarusian border.
Also we should do some sort of air-supported forward defense, but giving Ukraine the full spectrum that is in our arsenals (and more of it) and some relief to redistribute soldiers should be the least we do.
Like (10)
Reply (1)
I don't see a point to putting US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine. That would simply validate Putin's propoganda that this is an existential battle with the West. But I agree that we should be giving Ukraine significant technical and monetary support.
Like (12)
Reply (1)
6d Edited
Agree. Everything in the Ukraine war points to the idea that putting soldiers (especially those trained by the U.S. military) any where close to the front simply gets them killed. IIRC, the "kill zone" (what in WWI was called "no mans land") is about 30 km wide.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
The kill zone is more like 30 km.
150-200 km is Ukraine's very effective mid-range drones and missiles, cutting Russian supply lines. The key to (eventually) collapsing Russia's front lines.
Ukraine is mainly short of patriot type missiles to down Russian balistic missiles targeting civilians, far behind the front lines.
Although everything else will help.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
Thanks for the correction. And everybody is short of Patriot missile systems. The U.S. burned up nearly two years' production in the Iran fiasco. Nobody will get deliveries any time soon. Fortunately, the French and Germans are reported to be collaborating on a replacement system.
Like
Reply
Agree, Europe is funding a lot the Ukraine war. While the US has in many ways abandoned Ukraine, the US still provide intelligence to Ukraine which is critical to some of their gains in targetting sites in Russia, and starting to regain ground in Crimea.
Like (7)
Reply (1)
Actually, the biggest help from U.S. sources has been provided by Elon Musk. Russia is unable to use Starlink. Ukraine still can.
Like (6)
Reply (2)
One of many reasons that Starlink and similar systems ought not be in private hands. A change of whim and ...
Like (7)
Reply
The info I got was reporting from Michael Weiss and Marc Polymeropolous - they alluded to the CIA, nothing said about Starlink, but that doesn't mean that isn't a resource or even the resource. Not an intelligence expert myself. Marc is and Michael is well connected IMO.
Like (1)
Reply
Read Shankar Narayan and the Concis. It will change your mind about what you said.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
Link?
Like (1)
Reply (1)
shankarnarayan+russo-ukranian-war@substack.com If this doesn’t work, look at the top of your screen On Substack, you will see the little magnifying glass symbol for “search”. Put in Shankar Narayan and it should take you to his substack page.
Like
Reply
Sorry but Europe is very far away from beeing absent from Ukraine. If Europe had a direct military involvement then Europe would effectively be in a War with Russia --- which, because most of the EU is part of NATO, would mean that NATO would be entering a war with Russia, a nuclear power and an ally to China. So it is not about shame but about the specif conditions of EU’s Geographical Politics --- Geopolitics is when you cannot but still have the same neighbours, the same mountains, the same rivers and the same pipelines and energy dependences. EU is helping Ukraine with funding of their military capacity. Do not believe every thing that is beeing said about European lack of strength : its just a different type of strength.
Like
Reply
I can say the focus is exactly on preventing that outcome in the first place. Every effort is going into holding the line and protecting those defence capabilities so they don’t fall into the wrong hands. That’s also why continued support and coordination with allies is so critical — it’s not just about Ukraine, it’s about Europe’s wider security too.
Like (9)
Reply
Doesn't need addressing, because it isn't going to happen. Just not even remotely possible now.
Like (5)
Reply (2)
I believe you are correct.
Like (3)
Reply
I think that is based on certain assumptions. I think while there is a corrupt, greedy, power hungry megalomaniac and a Putin fan running the US, nothing is beyond the realm of imagining.
Like (1)
Reply
It is a concern, but I don't think it'll happen. Ukraine is kicking Russia's butt.
Like (4)
Reply (1)
But slow and steady ruins the race. I really like Shankar Narayan and Concis for intelligent commentary on the military aspects of the Ukraine Russian war.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
I'm partial to Phillips P. O'Brien myself. It's his specialty.
Like (6)
Reply (1)
I read them both, probably overkill but it’s wonderful intelligent commentary. And I noticed that Phillips P O’Brien is often quoted or featured in other serious Substack writers’ columns.
Like (5)
Reply
Russia is already using drones. Not only the iranian shaheds but also new drones that evolved from the shaheds. What Russia also has is very heavy, burocratic, full of inertia, armed forces. And is so full of yes-men that the objective truth in the battlefields does not reach the corridors of the Kremlin.
But what no one actually is talking about is --- what will happen when Ukraine emerges as a regional military power, full of debts, a member of the EU, but a very nationalistic one, protectionist and with a power of veto in the EU that is 100 times that of Orban's Hungary ?
Yes!, we must help Ukraine ---but we must at all cost prevent it to, after the war, become itself a democracy in appearence only. And one heavily armed at that.
Only integrating Ukraine deeply in the inner mechanisms of the EU will it have more to gain from aligning with it than from playing the tough-guy, hinterland-miopics routine.
Like
Reply
Russia is not far behind Ukraine in the new technology, but Ukraine stays a bit ahead so far. Drone warfare is advancing in both countries.
Like
Reply
Europe must step up to this. But it seems inevitable that the dictators will catch up with the technology.
Like
Reply
Can't argue with any of that. Two things I'd add.
1. The UK should get it's act together and rejoin the EU. For the most part the only people against that at the moment are racist and economic nutters. Could we send them to the US, who seem to like them? Then I could get the work in Europe I lost back.
2. The US really needs to get rid of your mad "emperor" and his white supremacist chums. Not because they're wrong (of course they are: when have they ever been right?) but because they will sink your economy. I'd take a bet the AI money-go-round will stop when people realise that a) it will burn $$$ forever and b) it has no (sane) use case. For enthusiasts, yes I've worked with AI, and I think some of it is useful, but probably not if you are looking to make huge amounts of cash. I think the chatbot element is misleading, and the source of most AI hallucinations. I'd like to go back to machine learning, without the stochastic parrot please.
Like (36)
Reply (2)
Please don't send your nutters here. We're having enough trouble minding our own.
Like (22)
Reply
I would have agreed with you about AI until a few days ago. My son and daughter in law are coders and they've both started using Claude recently. They say they can do amazing things with it. That wasn't the case a year ago. They are very concerned about it's societal implications, especially considering the awful people leading so much of it, but it does look like it's actually able to do a lot of stuff.
It's a train I'm choosing to not get on. But I'm old and have no need that I can see. I write stories and my son said it really helps with ideas, grammar and getting words in text. For me those things are the fun of writing. I've got more ideas than I could ever write down in fifty years and I've only got ten left.
But AI, which looks set to become able to make it's own rules, is moving fast. Leon with his China Substack has a really interesting essay recently about Musk's system of companies.
Like (5)
Reply (1)
Claude can do a lot of stuff. I'm a coder myself (40 years in software) but my point of comparison is always not "what can it do?" but "what does it cost?" and "what is the return on investment?" And that's where it fails. Uber recently went through its AI budget for the year in 3 months. Uber's CEO couldn't work out if it had made a profit or a loss from that, just that it was expensive. Very expensive. Because OpenAI and Anthropic have recently been charging the real cost of the compute. They are now reducing it again due to push back from customers, but at the reduced rate they are burning money. This is true of all AI businesses. For myself I suspect that the useful bit of AI is the machine learning. That could be used for a number of things most obviously relatively neutral health screening, but many other things as well. Yes Claude lets you code quicker comma if by that you mean "let's Claude code quicker" but much code generated by AI is just sloppy and requires intervention by a human to make sure it's less sloppy (40 years tells me it will never not be sloppy to some degree).
Because most of the businesses in AI are now on their way to IPOs it is greatly in their interest to maximise their customer base by any means necessary. I don't think this is going to end well. I'm also a writer and I'm in my 70s. I tried running some of my stuff through AI. The problem you find with that is simple: it can make you sound like almost anybody else, badly. For most of us we just want to sound like ourselves, so it has limited utility in my humble opinion.
Like (9)
Reply (2)
AI definitely smoothes out unique voices & perspectives. It's not something to use to express yourself creatively.
Like (5)
Reply
Totally agree with your point, "my point of comparison is always not 'what can it do?' but 'what does it cost?'" Why would I create an AI agent to replace a financial analyst when the currently loss making AI won't be profitable unless it charges me more than the human financial analyst?
Like (1)
Reply
I am so grateful that Ukraine hasn't folded and is becoming a significant weapons producing country. Once theyre in the EU sh*ts gonna get real here in the US. We will be 3rd on the totem pole while the likes of trump rages at 3am on a flunky social media app that we are the greatest. All his minions going along with it to see what they can get out of it is so frustrating.
Release the Epstein files so we know who has to support trump to keep out of jail.
Like (29)
Reply (2)
I understand where you’re coming from. What matters most is that Ukraine has stayed resilient and is building real strength in its defence sector, and closer integration with Europe could definitely reshape global security dynamics in the long run.
Like (8)
Reply
New EU members will start with Ukraine....Canada will come next.
Like (7)
Reply (1)
Not so fast on Canada. It's not a European nation. The EU *is* making all sorts of exceptions to the rules to allow it most (maybe all) of the rights of a true member, but they will have to go a lot further to give it full membership. On the other hand, if Canada can do anything an EU member can do, membership really doesn't matter.
Like (1)
Reply
I think Ukraine hitting the oil depot in Moscow last night and closing both airports demonstrates your “tilts towards Ukraine now” - despite not having the US support in money or weapons. The Ukrainian Flamingo - somehow I think we will see a Flamingo interceptor in the near term as well. I can definitely say you’re correct about the fact that the blind is off in terms of US military power. What this means in terms of China and Taiwan - and microchip availability - is something to consider.
Like (27)
Reply (1)
I suspect Taiwan will be a slow "integration". Certainly, the Taiwanese know that we're not a security guarantee anymore. China may be smarter than to try to take them over completely and kill off the golden goose. Better to collect the eggs. But, who knows. They are susceptible to stupidity like the rest of humans.
Like (5)
Reply
All great points. My heartache is that the US Fed in power and the Supreme Court and Wall Street is so institutionally morally and/or criminally and ethically rotten and worse still 33 - 50% of the voter base supports this. Wow. They cannot be depended on to be moral and reasonable. Hate rules their worldview. Meanwhile what? 40,000+ Americans die unnecessarily and an even larger cohort is bankrupted due to medical. And 33% of Americans don’t think the US should guarantee healthcare to all. Wow. Heartless sonsabitches. Makes me ill.
Like (19)
Reply (2)
The billionaire-owned reich wing propaganda networks are very effective at conning the gullible to support the people who actively convince them to act in the billionaires' best interest. After all, the most important issues to the MAGA gullibles in America are wokeness and bathroom use. While they claim they don't, they fall for every line of Fox Cult News propaganda.
Like (12)
Reply
The Fed is *not* under Trump's control. The new head may be, but the governors are not, and governors control it. So far, anyway. Wall Street is a business consortium, not a church or political unit. Do you expect them to go bankrupt because the political world doesn't share your sense of morality?
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Is your question to my comment? If it is we are miscommunicating. I left the wrong impression.
Like
Reply (1)
Yes, it's a reply to that. You have no right to complain about Wall Street on the grounds you stated.
Like
Reply (1)
I was personally involved in a multi billion dollar deal that a Wall Street bank did a big bad ugly thing to the poor citizens of an unnamed state, asshole. Adios. Blocked.
Like
Reply
Trump's unilateral mutilation of every facet of American power and influence is so across-the-board and without nuance that it (paradoxically) argues against the theory that he is paid operative of the Kremlin. No one working for the Russian organyi would be so unsubtle and brazen in his efforts to destroy his own country. Eat your heart out, Kim Philby!
Like (17)
Reply (1)
Yes. Why is Trump so ever-lastingly subservient to the Russian dictator?
Like (11)
Reply (2)
Follow the money. The Russian Mafia has been laundering money in Trump properties for five decades now. Trump was one of the few real estate owner that allowed entities with hidden ownerships to buy their US properties.
Also, Trump's Taj Mahal casino received the largest fine at the time for laundering Russian funds through his casino.
Like (19)
Reply
Russia doesn’t have to pay Trump for what he is doing. They more than likely can blackmail him a dozen different ways.
But I don’t think Prof Krugman’s presentation is the place to address it.
Like (2)
Reply
This might be a tad pessimistic but not much. The thing not stated is the coming together of Europe plus the old British Empire. You can’t count on India, they’re going their own way and they have nukes. But there is a belt around the planet that brings together places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, plus Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea. Most of these places are low density population-wise but they are educated, rich, and ambitious. They also represent the Maritime Global Order. Please see Sarah Paige’s brilliant analyses in print or on YouTube for much more. I think the global order is going to change but not as much as you might think. The US is about to see what it was like to live in the South after Reconstruction until the 1960s. The South became a backward, poorly educated, largely agricultural captive nation with bad healthcare living off the largess of the rest of the country. Another example might be the Byzantine Empire after Rome fell in 476 CE. Europe entered a Dark Age at that point but the rest of the world including China and the Far East and Byzantium went on their merry ways. Today China may be putting itself in a position where it can say No but not Yes. The genius of America is that it could always say yes, if only imperfectly. Saying no a lot or only on my terms, means foregoing opportunities and I would not be surprised to see a modified form of containment by the rest of the world against China. China is a Continental Power in the Paine formulation while what’s shaping up as the G7 minus one, is a reconstructing Maritime power. Russia is a Continental Power too but it is quickly becoming a vassal of China with which it shares an expensive and large common border. So the lineup to the next century looks to be China vs the rest of the world +/- the US. Out migration from the US is starting for educated and rich people who will leave regular taxpayers with a mountain of debt further compounding our problems.
Like (15)
Reply
MOU , Memorandum of Understanding, signed by Trump is a total diplomatic and political disaster. He is destroying the US piece by piece and the spinless Republicans really do nothing.
Absolutely essential we do all we can to push back. Don't just be an observer and complain, organize and join in to change things. 3-4 today National Indivisible call (Google it) to gets started. We need you.
Like (12)
Reply
Europe’s main problem, as you eluded to but didn’t expand, is that it is a continent not a country. Coordinating the political and economic requirements of 28 countries in the EU trading block is complicated. It is unlikely ever to be a country as most people joined to avoid domination by a neighbour, so there is a limit to centralising power. That said, it is a powerful economic force and in time will develop military cooperation without the US. Quite honestly, they’d be mad to trust the US.
Like (12)
Reply
Paul, the one hole I can see in your logic is that Ukraine (and Europe as well) still heavily depends on US intelligence (I guess mostly satellite imagery) and SpaceX’s Starlink for communication with their drones.
Furthermore, I would like Europe to become more proactive and more internally aligned. But at least we seem to be moving in the right direction.
Like (11)
Reply (2)
What intelligence? I wouldn't trust anything the US is saying. How do we know it isn't all Putin?
Like (12)
Reply (3)
6d Edited
As I understand it mostly real-time location tracking of Russian military troops and assets. Along the frontline (more a zone than a line) the Ukraine has their own drone based imagery, but not deeper in Russia.
Like (6)
Reply (1)
Right. The short range stuff is frequently handled by drones controlled by fiber-optic cable. Sort of like the old joke of the portable phone with a long extension cord. The cable looks like monofilament fishing line.
Like
Reply
I recommend listening to Michael Weiss and Marc Polymeropolous' discussion on the Bulwark Takes yesterday. I might not always trust what some in the US are saying, but I definitely trust these two men.
Like (4)
Reply
Basically Starlink.
Like
Reply
There are up and coming European rivals to Starlink.
Like (7)
Reply (1)
As we used to say, “your words to God’s ears”.
Like (5)
Reply (1)
https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/these-are-the-six-european-alternatives-to-elon-musks-starlink
😊
Like (3)
Reply (1)
Hurrah!
Like (1)
Reply
If we can salvage the republic and forge a post-delusion, post-rampant corruption government, my hope is that we can become part of the world community again, and learn to collaborate with democracies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Like (10)
Reply
Trump's rule will be known in history as the period of great decline of the United States as a geopolitical power.
Like (9)
Reply (2)
Done in the blink of an eye.
Like (3)
Reply
We appear to be the only empire who willfully destroyed itself.
Like (1)
Reply
Well, I hope those who had, for years, been agitating for war with Iran, such as John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, are now happy. They got what they wanted. Trump is not the only one who is erratic and unreliable.
Like (9)
Reply (1)
They're furious. They're all in for a big ground war. Trump is having a hard time convincing that faction of MAGA that we've really won. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost the respect of the world, damaged economies including our own... all for "We're going to talk about nuclear weapons later."
Think of how far ahead we'd be if he'd left the JCPOA (?) in place? Lost opportunities.
Like (4)
Reply (1)
If I were Europe (or any of our erstwhile allies), it'd be a long time before I trusted the US again. A very long time.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
It's frustrating that DonnyJon behaved himself pretty well until the last day of the G7. Then one of the German reps flattered him, and he went all bombastic again. Talking about "If Iran behaves itself, ...."
Like (1)
Reply
6d Edited
We're looking at what happens to a nation after 60 years of bad decisions. I'm 79 and will be dead before we're going to be able, if it's even possible, to fix this. I personally tried to be a good citizen. I served my country in the Navy for 20 years. I obeyed the law. I lived modestly, stayed gainfully employed and saved for the future so I wouldn't become a burden to society. I kept informed and over the past 30 years have voted in every election. It was not enough. I apologize to those I will soon leave behind for the mess I have left. It breaks my heart to see the decline of what was the greatest nation on Earth and had; no, still has; such great potential.
Like (8)
Reply
It's a Fart of a Deal!
Like (8)
Reply
i wish everyone with the opportunity would constantly point out to trump that while his war with iran was dumping huge amounts of cash into putin's russia through dropped sanctions and increased oil prices, his friend putin was supplying iran with intelligence to enable precision strikes on us and allied targets and providing things like drone parts and capital goods through shipping across the caspian sea. trump is putin's useful idiot; putin himself plays that role for the chinese.
Like (7)
Reply (1)
Do you think Chump would care? B/c he wouldn't.
Like (1)
Reply
Been reading you for years, and learned a great deal. To talk of nations, trade and power is removed a bit from my everyday reality, as it is for all people, academicians excluded. There's a good deal of insanity and randomness in who is on top today: Trump can recommend 'battleships', a defense that has been discredited since 1950, while Ukraine bombs Moscow with drones this morning. There appears to be class war, and established $ pathways that should be obsolete, but are alive and well. In the mean time, I just looked closely at what the USA is doing in my town for schizophrenics and court ordered folks; how to 'fix' them, and get them off the street. It's poorly designed, ad hoc, takes advantage of any vague wording in Medicaid to get $, to provide treatment, even if the treatment and housing it provides are bad solutions, through the cracks in legal wording, action to address lack of universal health care. Abstract rules rage on, on the macro and between nations. The rest of us must put our heads down and try to make it work. It speaks to a complete absence of power, of wierd and ridiculous actions as 'counterveiling' force, as Keynes would imagine. Its more like 'counterveiling farce'.
Like (7)
Reply
6d Edited
Paul - thanks for the analysis - all of it sound and accurate in my view. The question - and I mean this in the analytic sense - is so what? As a former intelligence officer who has spent much of my life overseas, I have a sense of the current version of the "Great Game", but for much of the U.S. population - particularly Trumplicans - I think we have failed to explain in accessible language why it is in their interest that we remain a world power. Your point about access to the ingredients that fuel our economy is compelling, and the price of gas and fertilizer are certainly pervasive factors, but my view is that we've failed to paint the overall picture in ways that are readily understood by Americans who have spent most of their lives not caring much about what happens beyond our borders. So what if our weapons systems are obsolete and stocks depleted? So what if we are being led by people more interested in self-dealing than the strength and viability of the U.S.? How do we reach and motivate voters - particularly those outside the core Trump cult?
Like (6)
Reply
This is pretty sound thinking. I might have some quibbles here and there, but this is a talk you could give to a sophisticated audience and provoke thought and discussion.
Like (6)
Reply
Many thanks!!
The United States had a pretty good run as a preeminent global economic and military superpower, from the defeat of Imperial Japan until 2025. Far from perfect on numerous occasions but generally a major contributor to improving the world overall.
It's no surprise that anything that takes many decades of hard work to build can be destroyed much, much more quickly - but I still find the MAGA Christian Nationalist immolation of the United States and its global reputation and capabilities shocking.
And profoundly sorrowful...
Like (5)
Reply
Spain doesn’t have much batteries yet, but they are coming. As of today, Spain runs on a combination of solar+wind+hydro+nuclear. Batteries are just the piece needed to allow for more grid stability, and for more space for solar energy growth.
Like (5)
Reply (1)
Thanks for the info.
Like
Reply
Additionally, the US has harshly abandoned soft political and economic power efforts directly and by its disrespect for sovereignty, which has further opened the field for China (and Europe) in Africa, North and South America, Asia, and countries not in EU.
Like (5)
Reply
Canada's purchase of next-generation fighter jets serves as both hard illustration and metaphor for the new world order. Having already purchased a batch of US-made F35s, the world's most advanced fighter, Canada is seriously considering cancelling the remaining bulk of its order in favor of alternatives from Sweden or S. Korea. These jets are not as advanced as the F35, but they are also cheaper, more reliable, less dependent on sophisticated, expensive infrastructure and support systems, less dependent on an erratic foreign power, and can be built in Canada--all obvious advantages for a major, long-term Canadian defense investment. The Swedish Gripen in particular seems better suited to Canada's climate and geography, especially its arctic border. Ukraine, too, is celebrating a recent deal with Sweden for Gripens.
Like (4)
Reply (2)
This was facilitated by Rolls-Royce coming up with a replacement engine for the Gripen. The new engine improved the performance and removed the U.S. ability to interfere (the older engine is made by GE).
Like (2)
Reply
Two years ago, making "political" considerations the deciding factor in Canada's fighter jet purchase would have been perceived as nonsense. How times have changed.
A Gripen that can fly is better than an F35 stuck in maintenance.
I understand that many senior military officers do not want to hear this, but allies now have to seriously consider if the US would respect contractual commitments (given they have not respected the Gordie Howe bridge contract), protect repair facilities from drone and missile attacks (given they have not done so in the Persian Gulf), and if the US defense industry will be financially viable going forward (given how many potential buyers the Trump administration has scared off).
Like
Reply (1)
There's the DOD cost-plus culture to consider as well, which incentivizes complexity and proprietary solutions, from development through manufacture through maintenance and upgrades. The Gripen comes from a very different culture, designed to be supportable by non-specialist recruits while operating from dispersed hangars and roadway strips.
Like
Reply
"It’s like we have the world’s best cavalry in an age of machine guns..."
There is a long history of nations preparing to fight the last war and realizing too late that the old tactics just don't work anymore. Such a waste of effort and money...
Like (4)
Reply
This topic should present well...so many bad decisions and poor strategy coming forth from the Trump White House.
Like (4)
Reply (2)
Trump is a mentally disordered incompetent. He can't project two steps ahead on anything he does. Gosh, who could have known the Iranians would shut down the Strait of Hormuz? Just about anyone with half a brain.
He is so stupid that he thought the US would drop a few bombs and the Iranian people would revolt, take over and surrender, like Bibi told him so.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
Watching the dedication of the Obama Center in Chicago, the juxtaposition of a president with a brain vs. Trump is dramatic. Who the Fuc" voted for that moron?
Like (1)
Reply
Bad decisions--absolutely, but I'd suggest "absence of strategy".
Like (3)
Reply (2)
By definition, "strategy" requires thinking about the long term. That is not in DonnyJon's toolbox.
Like
Reply
"... but I'd suggest "absence of strategy..." And you would be correct.
Like
Reply
A few questions come from this essay: What happens when India gets its infrastructure act together and begins really to compete with the three? Will pollution in China prove to be a price that it cannot pay down? Were the US to stop being the police officer to the world, would the money then being available end up as funding for critically-needed infrastructure, or would it go to tax relief for the super-rich? What happens to these various economic players when the low birth rates really kick in, and when more social resources need to go for healthcare and eldercare? What happens to China when the world cannot absorb more and more of the country's output?
Like (4)
Reply
In post Trump if we return to rationality then the European and US GDP together become stronger than China. And in some way, the strengthening of Europe to stand on its own might add to a post Trump strength of the Democratic part of the world. If we manage to move through this chaotic period we will prove that Democracy, though chaotic can survive the storm. I hope we succeed.
Like (4)
Reply (1)
Add Canada to that!
Like (4)
Reply (1)
If you read Shankar Narayan, you will find that Canada is already part of Europe. And they will be leaving the US behind. Because we are untrustworthy.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
Canada is not part of EU… yet, it is of course a trusted partner
Like (2)
Reply
Careful you're going to end up on Trump's naughty list .. 😮Carefull
Like (4)
Reply (2)
This is no time to be a coward.
Like (4)
Reply
That’s what I was thinking too!🤨 I guess Dr. Krugman still fits under Tump’s NY Times criticism umbrella!😆
Like (2)
Reply
And don't forget Hungary! This was a major blow against Putin's clandestine control. Great column - way to put things into perspective!
Given the difficulty of defending against drone warfare, don't the new weapons make Europe and Israel less secure? Will we not have dictators using drones against their own people?
Like (3)
Reply (1)
It makes everything less secure. That wacko who wanted to bomb DonnyJon's cage match is a Nazi (literally). He apparently wanted to start a race war (like Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson).
Like
Reply
6d Edited
Paul Krugman, you are the soul of clarity. Thank you for this excellent summation in what's going on in the world of geopolitics (and whatever you train your sights on)
I can imagine a little spreadsheet itemizing some of these points:
China USA Europe
Military power Chk? Chk?? Chk??
Cruelty Chk Chk Less ???
Devious Chk Chk Less ???
Focus CHK++ Shambolic Chaotic but waking up
Principled Maybe?? NOT Yes (no one's perfect)
Like (3)
Reply
It is the oligarchs that created and continue to stand by and literally next to Trump that have made this horrific assault on human values, and democracy and true freedom in so many ways.
Trump is the mouth piece for these assaults. It is the oligarchs that are truly responsible for sacrificing America's great mission of democracy and so much more.
The cost to the world and the future of our planet and all living things is immeasurable.
The first down payment of $300 billion is token amount that must be paid entirely by the oligarchs now.
Oligarchs have squandered their good fortune for deals with the devil. They must repay and repent for the unspeakable things they have done to the future of all God's living things.
Like (3)
Reply
And Europe has allies......
Like (3)
Reply
HOW LOOOOOW CAN HE GO?................. 33% approve, WOW!!!!!!!
Trump's approval ratings continue to fall to record lows, particularly over his handling of the economy, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. Only one-third of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy, which is three points lower than the worst ratings former President Joe Biden received during his term. Just 36% of respondents approve of Trump's overall job performance, while 59% disapprove, marking the widest gap he has faced in either of his terms in office.
NPR/PBS News/Marist poll.
Like (3)
Reply (1)
As a point of comparison, IPSOS reports that 21% of American adults believe Santa Claus is real. We don't know if they are the same people who believe Trump is doing a good job.
Like
Reply
Virtually every issue Dr Krugman so mournfully highlights was predicted years ago by his fellow economists, social commentators and thoughtful political leaders. So, where’s the outrage? where’s the demand for accountability? where’s the demand for fundamental regime change? Out watching MMA on the White House lawn, out engrossed in watching base-, basket-, or football at the local “Bread and Circuses” display (aka TV) on the living room wall (increasingly minus the bread, of course) or, for the more intellectual, utterly involved in watching which AI generated avatar is bedding which AI generated avatar on AI generated social media. Eighty years ago the American public was at least enraged with “Who lost China”. Trump and his cronies have now “lost” China, Europe and much of the rest of the world and no gives a damn. It’s painful to witness the decline and fall of America.
Like (3)
Reply
On the substance of Mr Krugman's geopolitical exposition, it would seem that the price of gas at the pump has decided Mr Trump's foreign policy. It's not quite "for want of a nail...", or is it?
Like (2)
Reply (1)
I think you might smile, Henry, at a point made by Alexander Verbeek (retired Dutch diplomat, posts on Substack, from where I’ve taken the comment)?
Verbeek comments that Trump signed the memorandum in Versailles, and Verbeek wonders in anyone in Trump’s team had the courage to inform Trump of the history of Germany’s signature of her armistice in 1919 also at Versailles…..
In my eyes, Trump is such a trouble-making buffoon/ robber baron that I can only manage a weak smile myself.
Regards, Anthony
Like
Reply (1)
Macron gave Trump a racing bike as a gift. To an 80-year-old man who can barely make it up the stairs. That is high-level trolling.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
😂
Like
Reply
Nice, Prof. Krugman. But when describing the USA, consider using phrases that others have used (e.g., Superpower Suicide, as Prof. Tim Snyder put it so eloquently.)
Like (2)
Reply
Many people (especially conservatives) demean "socialist Europe" for providing unaffordable support for its citizenry without realizing that debt / GDP in the US is much higher than in Europe.
Am I the only person that finds it just about impossible to assimilate the fact that while engaging Iran in negotiations, we hauled off and murdered its heads of state? There is nothing like that ever happening in world history. And yet everyone seems to just accept it.
It's totally outrageous. Are we acquiescing to that direction for world history?
Like (2)
Reply (2)
6d Edited
It happened more than once in Chinese history.
For example, the King of Qin kidnapped the King of Chu during a peace talk, and eventually captured the land of Chu, the last independent kingdom of Zhou Dynasty.
The Chu King died in Qin's prison. Supposedly, the next Chu King said: "Even if we were only to have three clans left in our country, the kingdom of Chu would defeat Qin". The Qin dynasty only last 1.5 generation and got toppled by people from Chu.
"楚虽三户，亡秦必楚“
Like (1)
Reply (1)
At least the King of Chu voluntarily put himself into danger, and - that was over 2,200 years ago! The closest I can think of is when Reagan tried to assassinate Gaddafi.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
The fact that the world pretty much accepted Reagan's attempt at murdering a head of state is also outrageous. American exceptionalism should not be a thing at all, but it should certainly not be a self-justification for criminal activity.
Like
Reply (1)
The rules of engagement during the cold war appear to be different. I remember spending days at school to prepare for potential nuclear attacks from either US or USSR. I thought the whole thing was silly. If my small hometown really got attacked, no preparation would make any difference.
Like
Reply
I’m in total agreement. The World Criminal Court system needs to be involved here. The bombing of small vessels on either side of South and Central America should also be investigated. Indiscriminately killing simply because you can is a crime.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Amen and thank you! Where is the outcry? it’s absence is very demoralizing, dispiriting, unbelievable, you name it.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Hi George & Old Man with a Dog.
I don’t know if you have the energy for it, but I suggest you pressure your congress rep to get the US to join the Intl. Criminal Court.
As it stands, the US considers herself beyond the judgement of the Intl. Criminal Court. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has judged that no action of a US President can be criminalised while acting within his/ her (when will that be?) executive position.
Those small boats blown up in the Caribbean/ the abduction of Maduro/ the girls’ school in Iran, and on into the future.
Good luck.
Like (1)
Reply
Nothing will bring the Europeans together politically and economically like having to be responsible for their own strategic defense. While they were under the US defense umbrella they could afford to quibble about everything. Once they have a truly unified fiscal and trade union comparable to the US they will in fact be economically stronger.
Like (2)
Reply
It might be the best thing that has happened to the US since Lincoln saved the Union, though he was killed for doing so, and for freeing the slaves. We will have to rethink who we are, what we are doing on this planet, and how we want our country to evolve. Evolve it must! That much is certain.
Like (2)
Reply
The war with Iran did achieve one of its goals, if not its primary goal - it momentarily distracted us from The Epstein Files.
One thing not often noted about US military power is that it's dependent on the will of the people, and the people did not will the war with Iran, nor any war since WWII.
Ukraine is doing a great job standing up to the bully Putin. Cлава Україні! 🇺🇦🇺🇸✊
Drone warfare is clearly the wave of the future. We have some catching up to do.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
Yep. The Shahad type drone costs about $20,000, and some Ukrainian units are much cheaper. The U.S. reaper costs about $33,000,000.
You can pick up one of the very cheap drones for $760 at B&H Photo. You'll have to add the grenade-dropping feature yourself.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Best Buy has them too.
Like
Reply
Krugman is a geography guy so I thought when he talked about military power he would bring in geography.
America widened its borders to include the entire world. That meant the US had a lot of borders to defend. The US is lucky to have Canada and Mexico on the land side. The US is a sea girt nation so it has or should have a large navy.
Even before the age of drones the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Reagan's Beirut showed the limitations of US power, or the limitations of political will.
Back to borders. Poor Russia has a lot of border to defend as Ukraine is demonstrating. Ukraine is also demonstrating the uselessness of atomic weapons. They are only useful to commit national suicide. Iran should give up their uranium project and spend the money on drones and missile defense. The US should do the same.
Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter.
Like (2)
Reply
The great Anthony Sampson exposed America's arms industry for the wretches they are way back in the seventies with his book "The Arms Bazaar". The money in that industry depended "bigly" on selling our arms to the Middle East Arab nations and Israel. Our war in Iran has shown many of our weapons systems are obsolete. Has the day of reckoning finally arrived for American arms manufacturers? How will that industry now suffer?
Like (2)
Reply
6d Edited
Professor Krugman, today's insightful summary of the decline of US power under Trump should serve you well at your presentation later today. I suggest one edit.
You say:
"Now, the most obvious: the United States just lost a war. Just lost it bigly, as Trump used to say. It’s an astonishing story. WE went up against Iran, which was definitely not a major military power or a major economic power, a sort of middle-ranked power, if that, and utterly failed to achieve our war goals. In the process, WE inflicted a lot of damage on the world economy and depleted our stocks of high-tech weapons that will take years to replace."
The word"We" should be replaced with TRUMP and the GOP. Assigning blame for his poor decisions to WE confuses people. When anything bad happens Republicans always blame Democrats whereas Democrats tend too often to project a collective sense of responsibility even when they opposed the decision. Political rhetoric is primarily about the assignment of praise and blame. From now on, please try to assign blame more directly to the perpetrator.
Like (2)
Reply
It is hard to understand how voters were duped by that kind of in you face moronic transgressiveness I can think of a string of put downs but it is so deeply serious there’s got to be a solution …Americans elected Obama, Hillary won the popular vote, Americans were always decent…no amount of misinformation or rile em up spin can fool anyone at this point while we can only hope hegseth with his high school bully underdeveloped frontal lobes and strutting ignorance gets dumped sooner rather than later I pray even the enablers are scared enough by the free fall of off the rail governance to stand up. The average American I still believe I’d better than this
Like (2)
Reply (1)
"The average American I still believe I’d better than this." Well, I don't know how you define "average" - but it is clear that a huge number of Americans are motivated by racism, misogyny and animus against the LGBTQ population and the "libtards." And that Chump's criminality and bullying are features as far as they're concerned - not bugs.
Like (2)
Reply
When the US was still a rational player Europe should have taken on a greater share of their own defense burden so if there is any up side to the current situation it is the fact they realize they do have the ability to do that. The interests of the US and Europe are closely aligned so a close alliance with increased defense spending by Europe would clearly have been in the best interest of the US, Europe and the world. We now have a weakened America alone making the world much more dangerous as China, Russia and any other authoritarian bad actors realize they can get away with whatever they wish. We are only beginning to understand the harm trumpism has done and will continue to do.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
Well, this was the attitude in the '60s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j20voPS0gI
Like
Reply
One of the best, clearest and shortest presentations about the current situation that I've read...
Like (2)
Reply
'So we learned that the power in international trade disputes in a fundamental sense reflects power over supply, not power over demand, which is something economists have always tried to say. But tRUMPTY dumpty is much smarter then the Nobel prize economists don't cha know.
Add to that the fact that the United States has been erratic and unreliable. Our current leadership just doesn’t understand that a reputation for doing what you promised, honoring your agreements, is itself a source of power, and we have done an enormous amount to undermine that. Not news to anybody except the moron in the Oval office. When you elect a clown to office, not be surprised when the circus comes to town, and in tRUMPs case it is run by P.T. Barnum wanna be...not the greatest showman on the earth, but the greatest "snow" man on the earth.
Like (2)
Reply
Thank you for this informative conversation. The one question, I have is how much debt is the United States in.
Like (2)
Reply
It’s a sad fact that all the truth about the Iranian war came from Iran and not from the US
Like (1)
Reply
An excellent review. With respect to Ukraine, although Mr. Krugman hints at it, there's a strong argument that Russia is "losing" even if you can't say yet that Ukraine is "winning". Europe is indeed stepping up, although the war still seems likely to drag on. The biggest risk to Ukraine is not from Russia, but from Trump's pulling the rug out from under it just when things are starting to go right. Ukraine needs money, missiles, and ongoing support, and, especially, not to be subverted. Can Trump manage that? The problem is, as one of the retired generals on a recent Atlantic Council said, the US has had no strategic goal in Ukraine (and that goal should be that Russia withdraws to its pre-2014 borders), and "this White House has never had an identifiable strategic thought."
Like (1)
Reply
Very thought provoking, Dr. K.
Like (1)
Reply
Power is not a concept that can be taken literally. Like money it is a symbol, but at least money can be handled with arithmetic. Power is not part of the objective universe, which idea has only become clear in the last couple of centuries. Now we can see that it is a metaphor, that we can handle people in the same way we handle stuff, according to the physics of cause and effect. But relations among people are not like that: they are strategic: what you get from an action depends not only on what you do, but what others do in reaction. Our basic understanding of power is that it is what you need to get your way despite resistance, but we use it as an explanatory device after the fact and a forecasting device before the fact.
The real problem is our culture's deficient conceptualization of symbols, something which points to something else but which lack the material consequences of the ever fugitive reality for which they substitute as patterns for action that structure local rather than universal knowledge and to which we attach our values to motivate our action. We talk about symbols as "mere" "just" "only," and yet people die for them all time.
Like (1)
Reply
its so sad, but (I'm an American), I'm afraid, so true. My add: I don't have a crystal ball, but going back 20 months my discreet comment to long time friends, some neighbors, some trusted, limited social media communities, was (concise paraphrase) "He/now47 seems to have no reasonable view of geopolitics, alliances, history, and I am afraid he will destroy 80 years of imperfect, but nonetheless Pax Americana progress." Many others seemed more worried about milk prices or if/maybe/kinda Kamala might...support transgender athletes? I am rarely that correct, but here we are.
Like (1)
Reply
This is very clarifying, as always.
Off topic, but as a huge fan of Paul Krugman, I have to say: I wish he would plunk down twenty-five bucks for a halfway decent podcast microphone. The pitiful little subpar mic on those earbuds just doesn't hack it. I always have to turn the volume WAY up on my speakers just to hear what he's saying. (It's worse when he's in dialogue with someone else who does have a good mic.)
Like (1)
Reply
Thank you PK for this concise and clear summary of how the US has changed as an economic partner. One suggestion: Now that your listeners have heard what you've said, what do they have to do differently?
Case in point: I live in Canada. In a few weeks, Canada, the US, and Mexico plan to review the USMCA trade agreement. Also on our plate: NORAD, NATO, and ordinary, everyday border management.
We now know:
- The US administration is not bound by treaties that the US has signed and the US senate has ratified (e.g. JCPOA abrogated as per treaty, tariffs imposed contrary to USMCA).
- The US administration is not bound by contracts, even if not respecting the contract significantly impacts the economies of multiple states negatively. (e.g. opening of the Gordie Howe bridge)
- If the US administration does not want to work with allies as a team to protect the security interests of Americans, congress will not object (e.g. starting the Iran war, trying to annex Greenland, invading Venezuela)
However, the US is still too big to ignore, both as a market and as a geographical neighbor.
Canadians also care about what happens to ordinary Americans and are not willing to make an agreement that we know would damage the US economy... no matter how much the US administration insists that we deal with world as they want it to be, not as it really is.
What to do?
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Hi Jane. Irishman resident in Britain here. A different relationship with the States, but some parallels. I’m very conscious of your PM’s Davos speech. I think he indicated, ‘the past is past, we’re on a new path now, and we have to think strategically’.
In short, the redemption, or not, of the US lies in the hands of her own citizens, not outsiders. Therefore, think of what is best for Canada. This will include ‘working with the USA’ sometimes, in Canada’s interests, but not always. It looks like Carney is trying to be as good as his word: I wish that spirit success.
Like
Reply
6d Edited
I asked GEMINI a few related questions regarding “Power, Energy & Geopolitics”.:
JW: Is Europe as dependent on China for solar panels & batteries as the US?
GEMINI: No, Europe is significantly more dependent on China for solar panels and batteries than the United States. While the U.S. has built aggressive trade barriers and subsidized local production to decouple from Beijing, Europe has prioritized cheap, rapid green energy deployment, leaving its supply chains almost entirely exposed to Chinese manufacturing.
JW: How about wind turbines and offshore wind farms. Does Europe have parity with China, while the US lags far behind?
GEMINI: Yes. Europe maintains technological and manufacturing parity with China in wind energy, while the U.S. lags far behind.Unlike solar and batteries, where Europe completely surrendered to Chinese manufacturing, Europe is a global powerhouse in wind energy. It invented modern offshore wind and is home to the world's most advanced turbine OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) like Vestas (Denmark) and Siemens Gamesa (Germany).However, China has scaled up massively, creating a fierce industrial battleground where Europe's historical leadership is facing intense pressure.
JW: Is the US hoping that nuclear & geothermal can compensate for our lack of prodigious, widely distributed solar and massive offshore wind?
GEMINI: No. The U.S. is not treating nuclear and geothermal as a replacement for solar and wind, because domestic solar is actually booming rather than lacking. While the US lags far behind in offshore wind, American domestic solar energy is expanding at a record pace.However, the US strategy has shifted heavily toward nuclear and geothermal to solve a different crisis: The massive power surge from AI data centers, manufacturing, and grid instability. Solar and wind are variable, but nuclear and geothermal provide "firm, baseload power"—meaning they run 24/7 regardless of the weather.
JW: It looks like US policy is driven by the existing US Oil&Gas industry. Oddly, they created US wind to pump, pipeline & process oil in Texas and have the expertise & workforce to develop offshore wind but are now stonewalling it, and shifting resources to geothermal & nuclear. Why?
GEMINI: There is a massive paradox in the US energy landscape. The US oil and gas industry possesses the precise offshore drilling, maritime engineering, and pipeline infrastructure required to dominate offshore wind. Yet, it has largely abandoned and actively resisted the sector, pivoting to geothermal and nuclear.This strategic shift is driven by three realities: Radically different profit margins, structural compatibility with current business models, and a shifting federal regulatory environment. Ultimately, the shift is a calculated capital reallocation. The US energy industry is abandoning a low-margin, US offshore wind market to double down on technologies where they already possess an unrivaled engineering and supply chain monopoly.
JW: "Monopoly"! Isn't that the Magic word?
GEMINI: Yes. "Monopoly" is the ultimate goal.The transition of US BigOil from offshore wind to geothermal and nuclear isn't just about matching skills. It is a calculated play to maintain a chokehold on the American energy supply chain.
JW: Does Elon Musk really believe he can "end-run" the BO&G and Utility monopolies by moving AI training into space?
GEMINI: Yes, Elon Musk absolutely believes he can end-run the terrestrial energy monopoly by moving AI training into space—and he has structurally bet his entire business empire on it.Through the massive merger of SpaceX and xAI and recent FCC filings to launch up to 1 million AI data center satellites, Musk is actively constructing a parallel, off-planet energy paradigm. By launching clusters of solar-powered "compute racks" into low Earth orbit, Musk’s explicit goal is to bypass the land zoning laws, local grid bottlenecks, and fossil-fuel gatekeepers that constrain terrestrial AI expansion.
Like (1)
Reply
Couldn’t agree more. One other factor demonstrating the decline of the United States is its continued support for the ethnosupremacist, tribal-nationalist, settler-colonial project that has been oppressing the Palestinian people for over a century now. Herzlian Zionism has no place in the 21st century.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
I am / wish to be, ‘a friend of Israel’. I support your criticism of the policies of the state of Israel in this spirit. Israel’s policies and behaviours are destroying democracy within the state, and exposing Israelis (and people identifying as Israeli or Jewish) all around the world. That’s before you examine the actions of the state of Israel to her non-Israeli neighbours, which can now be argued as attempted genocide. What a fate for both communities?! All in the power of her politicians…
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Hi Anthony. Even though the possibility of this is quite improbable at present, a binational state as detailed by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, and other “humanist Zionists” would be a preferable solution to this apparently intractable situation. But it is not impossible. Continued U.S. support for the status quo is not in the interests of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
Like (1)
Reply
I love the way you put the picture in place: “It’s like we have the world’s best cavalry in an age of machine guns.”
While I love the statement I don’t think the “best cavalry” can be the best when governed by a despot and his sycophants.
Like (1)
Reply
Ukraine has outsmarted Russia. It's recent shift away from the meat-grinding front line and accelerating the war against critical supply and distribution behind the lines, much like the Allies did in the second half of World War II with intensive bombing of Hitler's rail lines, ball-bearing plants, food and oil supplies, so that brand new tanks and motorized guns sat idle in the Ruhr without fuel and jet fighters sat idle without fuel when the Allies marched through and a million starving Wehrmacht troops surrendered without fighting. Russia now has serious shortages of locomotives, supplies, vulnerable bridges to Crimea, and crumbling logistics, while Ukraine launches waves of new generations of ever more sophisticated and harder to stop AI-enabled long range weapons. Russia started the war thinking all the fighting would happen on Ukrainian soil while they ran a war machine, untouched on Russian soil. Now it is the reverse, Ukraine has untouchable manufacturing in Japan, Germany, UK and elsewhere while it attacks Russia's war machine at will. I'm looking forward to the day when Zelenskyy tells Trump, publicly, "Excuse me, Mr President, but I have the cards, [and you've badly misplayed yours!]."
Like (1)
Reply
One of my biggest concerns is what the devaluation of US power and ability to keep shipping routes open means for Taiwan. Does anyone now believe Trump will attack China if they invade Taiwan?
Like (1)
Reply
OK, so we're getting our lumps and a trip down the superpower totem pole. Maybe it's a good idea for us to recognize that we as a citizenry have been sold a bill of goods for quite a while; that we were the best in all things.
We stood proudly by while the military-industrial complex pillaged our economy draped in the flag, we soured on educating ourselves as to the responsibility of being citizens in a democratic republic and we decided that a hate monger is a good choice to lead us. Maybe some time in the minor leagues will lead us to attempt a different approach.
Like (1)
Reply
Are you including the UK in "Europe"?
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Hi WC.
I’m writing from the UK….
… and I can never tell if Paul doesn’t specifically mention the UK because (1) he’s embarrassed to discuss the UK’s giant own goal (the Brexit psychodrama) or if (2) in a subliminal reflection of the UK’s irrelevance to the discussion (economics/ politics/ military), it just doesn’t register in his thoughts when he’s preparing his post.
Anthony
Like (1)
Reply
Mr. Krugman, please consider doing some segments regarding the trump pax silica initiative and its colonization of the philippines.
Like (1)
Reply
I’d be curious to hear what you have to say about the UK. I read an article in The Atlantic claiming that it was now on an economic par with Mississippi.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
6d Edited
Hi Judy.
I’m reading the comments, and your comment made me laugh aloud!
But behind my laughter is a realisation that economics matter (it’s one of the sources of the waves of grievance, dislike of ‘foreigners’, and reactionary politics). I live in the UK, and can comment that a lot depends on ´where you live’ (ie socio-economic/ educational background/ also geographical), but I think that we, people, are responsible for our own choices above and beyond these other factors.
I’ve had some uncomfortable discussions with fans of Trump (university graduates in good jobs, with good incomes) in the UK about this. I’ve tried to argue that the US is vast, and there are vast differences in experience in life among Americans. I’ll remember your comment about Mississippi for future conversations when I’m trying to penetrate their ‘Trump is the best!’ attitudes 😂
Like
Reply
The changing dynamic of the chaotic world order would inevitably lead to a federated Europe, with the departure of Britain from the EU, and the evaporation the us backed alliance, consolidation in EU industrial and military structure and capacity will eventually happen, that would be the biggest irreversible change that Europe will eventually take to. This could also be problematic to the PRC, a stronger EU would lead to replication of the developing country model that could benefit African countries as a replacement as a major global manufacturing hub, with a growing population and natural resources, the model could lead to major fabric hubs being moved from Asia to Africa, as Asia continue to face structured population aging and decline, its labour supply would eventually impact their export driven economy. The decline and fall of the us will continue until we the people sort out the mess we got ourselves in not just politically, there is a major deficit in the social and economical equality that needs to be addressed, a change in our national discourse would be required, especially on immigration, labour rights, public health care, and pension/retirement/social security reform…
Like (1)
Reply
In the long run, I think this is a good thing. It was a great financial and psychological strain on the US to always be top dog. Once we get a rational administration in Washington, we may be able to put our resources once used to be top dog toward more worthy applications.
Like (1)
Reply
The United States cannot bash its allies economically and diplomatically and then expect them to come to the aid of needless American wars. It defies the concept of rationality in American foreign policy. The United States cannot dictate that allies march to its tunes while it prefers that those allies become independent of American military financing and commissions "defense reviews" to presumably shrink its commitment to NATO. The more the US shrinks its commitment to NATO, the more Europeans will need to take-up the slack. But that means Europe will be politically and militarily more independent of the USA; and perhaps eighty years after the end of WW2 it is time that it should be. In a nutshell, the USA cannot eat its cake and have it, and this is what the Trump Administration appears loathe to understand or accept, a factor fueling the inter-ally schism that the SG of NATO is doing his diplomatic best to paper over. But the paper is wearing thin. You want to be a super-power: fine, then act like one.
Like (1)
Reply
China's economy is drastically overestimated by PPP. PPP equates fried crickets and fried chicken, depending on what people in the nation eat commonly. However we've seen former cricket-eating nations gain wealth, and wow do they like fried chicken a whole lot more. Moreover, China's actual level of economic development is less than it reports, since China is a totalitarian dictatorship systematically lies at all levels about its economic growth, and has done so for decades. China's population crash is just getting started, and take a look at capital flight from China. People also continue to emigrate from China when they get a chance. Military hardware in Iran was Chinese, spectacularly including air defenses. It was totally ineffective. Wildly overestimating China is a common malady.
The new malady is to declare Iran's regime the victor. Iran lost their nuclear program and the leadership that prioritized the nuclear program. We were there to stop the nuclear program. It has been stopped. Whether they ever can revive it depends on them, and us, but it's derailed at minimum cost to the US. We remain overwhelming militarily and nobody else is even in the same ballpark. China is not in the same ballpark at all.
Trump's statements re Greenland etc should not obfuscate the reality that Iran was a major military power - a major supplier to the Russians for example. Iran was profoundly defeated with minimal casualties. The only reason that Iran is not occupied fully right now is our own self restraint. Simply we don't want Iranian real estate. Trump's now skipping to the rebuilding as an ally part, which we have done successfully, but without the unconditional surrender part. Will it work? Maybe. Japan never unconditionally surrendered either, with Emperor Hirohito dying of old age on the throne.
Like (1)
Reply
America did not lose the war. Wars cannot be won from the air or from afar. Wars are between men, and America in 2026 is unwilling to get its young people killed in war. That's why the "lunatics" call them cowards and feel strong.
Like (1)
Reply
So ignorant thuggery as Foreign and Economic policy is not a good way to go.
Like (1)
Reply
Great talk. You expressed what I've been thinking and feeling as I've watched our rapid decline. However, given 51% of our public's stupidity and susceptibility to con artists, I'm not surprised or upset by how this is turning out. It's logical consequences of our collective ignorance.
I am dismayed and embarrassed as an American. Arrogance and ignorance strikes again. We are continuing to destroy what made us great in the first place...ripping up the ocean monitoring equipment because it tells a story that Trump doesn't want told is a good example.
America is facing a serious test of our democracy and our national character. We will either right the listing, rapidly sinking ship, or not.
However, I am glad that in many ways the world is moving forward in positive directions. Trump couldn't have done anything to more powerfully demonstrate the benefits of renewable energy. While he's trying to bring back coal and paying companies to not build wind power, everywhere else is blasting ahead.
Like (1)
Reply
6d Edited
Look, Mr. Krugman, I have no sympathy for the devil Putin, but I am afraid that you did not understand very well what happened and what is happening in Ukraine.
Like (1)
Reply
Thank you, Mr.Krugman, for your insight and wisdom.
Like (1)
Reply
6d Edited
Paul, please replace yur picture on this post - you look even worse than a half-asleep orange blob!
Like (1)
Reply (1)
He's probably still a bit jet-lagged.
Like
Reply
The United States of Europe are more united, and the United States of America are less united than just a couple years ago. NATO has added two states to its membership, and European states have increased their defense budgets. One non-NATO European country is fighting Russia to a draw, so the Russian army is less threatening than previously believed. This should give more confidence to NATO. Also, the Europeans have learned that they cannot rely on American weapons and equipment, since there might be a kill switch somewhere in the US that can de-activate those weapons or systems. So, they are forced to be more independent.
At the same time the US administration suffers from very low approval among the citizens. Almost any European country with such low approval would be forced to call for an election and face the prospect of a change in government.
Like (1)
Reply
My favorite part of this was the headline "... After Trump". It got me thinking that we should focus a lot more on the possibilities - less Authoritarianism, possible structural changes to the Presidency, and other possible positive outcomes. Especially important since Trump isn't the ultimate problem - but is instead a swamp product. And there will be other swamp products if we don't make some structural changes.
Like (1)
Reply
Paul, please, please, please stop with the China bashing.
Like (1)
Reply
There are a number of good points here; I especially benefited from the one about trade, namely that control over supply is more important than control over demand.
One point that people seem to overlook, including in this analysis: as I understand it, the US continues to provide intelligence to Ukraine and that this is crucial in enabling Ukraine to hold the line and strike Russia.
Like (1)
Reply
And after all this, that leaves us only with the threat and deterrent of our nuclear stockpile of weapons…
Like (1)
Reply
So the post WWII geopolitical power structure originally reflected the fact that the US was the sole hegemon. To borrow a construction phrase, that power structure remained standing out of habit, both in the minds of many and to some extent in practical reality, even after complete hegemony passed.
Trump supporters elected him to smash things and the post war status quo has indeed been well and truly smashed .
Like (1)
Reply
Suggestion on the speech: provide rhe European audience with specific examples of how their future can be more powerful, with a few words on what they could do to make each example a reality.
Like (1)
Reply
And if you go out of your way to impoverish and weaken your population, those people “who buy stuff”, doesn’t that also make your “market” less attractive?
Like (1)
Reply
Thank you for the analysis, Paul
Like (1)
Reply
thank you so much, Paul.
thank you
susan murphy
Like (1)
Reply
FROM FOX NEWS...........................The moment unfolded at a press conference in France, where Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy questioned Trump about his earlier characterization of Iran as a nation that "never won a war but never lost a negotiation."
"I just want to ask you about this," Doocy began. "A wise man once said in January of 2020, Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation."
Trump interjected, "Who said that?" ...
Doocy clarified, "Donald Trump," prompting the president to respond, "That's what I thought you would say."
Like (1)
Reply
Yeah! Make Europe pay for the Ukrainian war, so we can apply those savings for Trump’s folly in Iran! And the trillions of dollars that the defense department is asking for now to replenish our stockpiles, will make most U.S. taxpayers heads spin! We’re already the super superpower of deficit spending!
Like (1)
Reply
tariff's DO work. not the way trump said but they do work....what the iranians have is a monopoly to the transportation of a big amount of fossil fuels and the subsequent products made by it. you can' 'jawbone' our importance, especially when it is demonstrated your aren't all that important, reality intrudes..
and this has been for 6 years of trump a battle against reality!!
the green reflecting pool i s a great metaphor for our situation...the vanities and conceits of a damaged mind bump up against 'what is'...reality. the world is woke...your feelings about it are politically relevant; that's all....
Like (1)
Reply
What, no MUSICAL CODA on this one?
I think this fits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjqUJJwh1dw
(Mostly, I prefer to post chamber music, but I'll make an exception today.)
Like (1)
Reply
You have to visit Croatia in person!
Like
Reply
Paul you should read or listen to this podcast from Sunday NYT, esp the last half where Gary Shteyngart tells Ezra Klein how Europeans, even those who live in the poorest ares, have a good life by enjoying beauty rather than efficiency, right down your lane!
Like
Reply
Enjoyed the talk, but am I the only one that has Prof Krugman’s video freezing repeatedly? I noticed the same thing in the “Lunch Money” talk with Heather Cox Richardson.
Like
Reply
The part I agree with most is the shift from thinking about demand power to supply power. That feels like the real story underneath a lot of this: rare earths, energy chokepoints, drones, manufacturing depth, and resilience matter more than headline GDP or old assumptions about military dominance. I’m less convinced Europe has solved the political cohesion piece enough to capitalize on that yet.
Like
Reply
The EU is a monetary union, not a fiscal union.
Like
Reply
One of the things we in Europe are especially cognizant of with regard to American weapons, and which has resulted in heightened distrust and turning away from continued investment, is the fact observed that the US can TURN OFF crucial functions, like they did in Ukraine. This goes beyond the hindrences of saying "you can't use the weapons for this and that".
Plus everything is delayed, and while delayed, the price is hacked up, spare parts not available, and only American technicians can repair things.
So really the virtual bondage America has placed Europe under militarily - and don't forget the US has opposed a pan European Army etc - is happily cast off.
Paraphrasing Ukrainians on Snake Island
F**k off America bullies.
Like
Reply
The comparison of the sizes of the economy of EU, US and PRC are fascinating. I like to look at comparisons of smaller entities. Such a comparison that I find fascinating is that between Mississippi and France.
In 2024 the per capita GDP of both was comparable, about $53k. I'm sure these numbers are not PPP adjusted. Yet Mississippi has the reputation of not being the sort of place you'd want to live in while France is a thriving nation.
Sure, PPP will help explain this, but it's not sufficient. The per capita GDP of the DC area is far highet than Switzerland. This is all a puzzle.
Like
Reply
Brilliant and insightful. You must be a great chess player!
Like
Reply
Spoton. One fact that I see very little discussion about is that China has gained acess to russian Siberia since the war started, giving them an immense hinterland to explore.
Like
Reply
What Trump and the U.S. have thrown away is a world order based on the rule of law. That order was established after WWII, and, despite its flaws, worked really well in keeping the great powers from continuing to tear each other apart. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here. But that order has been dealt a death blow by Trump. Now, instead of alliances, free trade, and international standards of conduct and cooperation, we've fallen back completely into a world of egoistic nation states where each is looking to maximize its power relative to all others. If that sounds bad to you, it should. It's the kind of world that brought about the great power clashes in Europe during the nineteenth century, WWI, and WWII. And now we're back to indulging in the same toxic international mix, but this time, with nuclear, chemical, cyber and biological weapons that dwarf the killing power of the weapons used in all the world's previous wars.
Like
Reply
Feedback: I want to know what Krugman is saying, here but even more so on “Lunch Money”. I cannot understand him. I wonder if he’s using the microphone on his ear buds instead of something more suitable? Mr. Krugman, I encourage you to look into alternatives. I get about 20% of what you are saying. (sad face.)
Like
Reply
Republican losers under trump. trump joins Nixon and Reagan as military leader losers.
Like
Reply
Mr Krugman - I rely on your measured delivery of important economic news, analysis and history. Please keep doing these frequent updates!
Like
Reply
Markets are signaling something important and leaders should pay attention.
As geopolitical tensions ease, we are already seeing the response:
Oil prices softening.
Japan’s stock market hitting record highs.
Investor confidence returning.
This is how fast the global system reacts when stability appears.
But this moment is bigger than a short-term market rally.
It shows that economic strength today is no longer driven by isolated national decisions. it is built on coordination, trust, and predictable global relationships.
The renewed momentum in India U.S. trade discussions is another signal of this shift.
Strategic partnerships are becoming the foundation of growth.
Not just for trade. but for supply chains, technology, energy security, and long-term resilience.
The real question for global leaders is simple:
Will this window of stability be used to build lasting economic architecture
Or wasted, until the next crisis resets everything again?
Because markets may celebrate quickly.
But sustainable prosperity requires something much harder:
Consistency. Cooperation. And the courage to think beyond the next disruption.
Like
Reply
For the first time in years, Europe is speaking in one voice on Ukraine.
A unified call for ceasefire. A push for negotiations. A signal of strategic alignment.
But unity is not the same as resolution.
Behind this moment lies a far more complex reality ongoing conflict, renewed sanctions, and deep uncertainty about whether peace is truly within reach.
At the same time, global attention is shifting.
From Eastern Europe to West Asia, from Ukraine to U.S.–Iran diplomacy, the world is not stabilizing. it is rebalancing.
Energy security, trade routes, and geopolitical influence are all being renegotiated in real time.
This is not just about war or peace.
It is about who shapes the next global order.
Leaders now face a defining choice:
Continue managing crises region by region or step back and build a coordinated global framework for security, energy, and diplomacy.
Because today’s conflicts are no longer isolated.
They are interconnected.
And any solution that treats them separately will only delay the next disruption.
The world is watching not just for peace
But for leadership that can deliver it, sustain it, and redesign the systems around it.
Like
Reply
There was an article in Scientific American in the early 1980s titled A New Strategy for Defense Spending, or something like that. (I'm going from memory here.) The new strategy was this: Instead of building tanks, built anti-tank munitions. They can protect us from a tank invasion without threatening our adversaries with weapons that we could use to launch an invasion. This was founded on their observation that, while a tank cost many millions of dollars to build, it can be taken out by an anti-tank munition that cost only $10,000 or so. The prevailing thinking back then was that the best weapon against a tank was another tank, but this was no longer true. Of course, Washington paid no attention, but these munitions were already being built. I'm surprised that it took so long to see this kind of approach succeeding in a major war, but this has been a very long time coming.
Like
Reply
Thank you for this dress rehearsal post for your talk.(Break a leg).
I really liked the bit about Europe and China, and the ways in which they are uniquely prepared by tradition, history and happenstance to fill the attentional void left by our "wandering away" from our prior super duper capabilities, global interests, and sensibilities. I will quote the Nurse in Romeo & Juliet by way of appreciation for today's video: "What learning is!"
Like
Reply
Dems must REBRAND.
We have been awful in our communications. The fix. It should be about
“WE ARE THE PARTY OF AMERICAN VALUES”
Patriotic, true, and we take It back from the Rs.
If we all use this concept in all its ways we can win in 2028.
Like
Reply
5d Edited
Dr. K,
Your analysis and preview of your talk underscores something historians of the American Experiment have been warning about for decades: great‑power influence is not a function of momentary strength but of "institutional continuity". The United States rose to global leadership not because it was the richest or the most militarized society, but because it built painstakingly, over generations the bureaucratic, both domestic and international, scientific, and industrial systems that allowed it to mobilize national power, at scale, to defend its interests, and act decisively to respond to existential threats to our nation and to the welfare of humankind: pandemics, natural disasters, and unprovoked attacks on other countries. Ukraine being a prominent example.
From the Continental Army’s supply reforms to the land‑grant universities, from the New Deal’s electrification programs to the wartime production boards, from the postwar science agencies to the interstate system, American capacity has always been a story of institutions that could plan, coordinate, and execute over long horizons. That is what made the U.S. the world’s indispensable nation: not just power, but reliability.
What the Trump era revealed is how fragile that institutional inheritance has become. The failures you describe: the inability to deter Iran, the misreading of supply‑chain leverage, the strategic incoherence of tariff policy are not isolated missteps. They are symptoms of a deeper institutional unravelling. A nation that once mastered the logistics of two‑ocean war now struggles to produce artillery shells. A government that once built the world’s most advanced scientific ecosystem now treats expertise as a partisan liability. A political system designed for deliberation and stewardship now rewards spectacle over statecraft.
Meanwhile, other actors have been doing exactly what the United States once did. Europe invested in energy resilience and industrial coordination; China built a vertically integrated manufacturing base and a disciplined long‑term strategy. They are not rising because they discovered a new formula for power. They are rising because they have been doing the slow, unglamorous work of building capacity while we have been dismantling ours.
The real geopolitical shift, then, is not simply that America looks weaker. It is that the world has begun to treat American weakness as structural — a product of institutional decay rather than temporary mismanagement. Old Allies are hedging, and old and new adversaries are probing. And, as you point out, global systems (The World Bank, the Bretton Woods organizations, and a host of international mission organizations, the IEA, the WHO, refugee assistance, that once assumed American stewardship are learning to operate without it.
If there is a lesson from the long arc of American and international history, it is that renewal is possible but only when we treat national capacity as a civic obligation, not a partisan trophy. The Golden Rule applies at the level of nations as well as individuals: a republic that refuses to invest in the commons cannot expect others to trust it with the global commons.
Your piece captures the moment when the world stopped assuming that America would get its act together. The question now is whether we still remember how.
All the best on your talk. It has been a rich day with the opening of the Obama Center in Chicago and the Knicks ticker tape parade in NYC. I am glad I got a chance to see both events.
Like
Reply
Trump, the Republicans and the fossil fuel industry are determined to keep us the most powerful country in the 20th century. Unfortunately, it’s the 21st century and the world is passing us by.
Like
Reply
What about the EU’s Russophobia and the pushing of NATO towards the east to keep Russia from expansion., It looks like Germany is not about to give up and they are pushing so hard that we could see the end of the EU from a nuclear attack?
Like
Reply
Well said!
Regarding the military issues — where of course Prof. K does not really claim any expertise of his own — some caution is called for. Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, et al. have demonstrated their capacity to lead the U.S. to defeat, but in better hands the U.S. armed forces have the capacity, as currently constituted, of delivering far better results. They are not structured for the sorts of wars of conquest so dear to Trump and Hegseth, but they have very great capabilities for defense of the U.S., its interests, and its allies (if it had not kicked them all to the curb). And they are world leaders in almost all technologies of military significance (very much including drone warfare; indeed the word itself in this context was originally a U.S. Navy coinage).
Classical International Relations "realist" theory would imply that the U.S. and Europe ought naturally to ally to balance the threat of an aggressive China, much as they did against the threat of the Soviet Union. Of course that depends on realistic leadership....
Like
Reply
To reinforce the point regarding the fundamental importance of resources, the initial abrupt rise of the U.S. to economic predominance was a direct result of disproportionate access to raw materials, and especially to iron ore. In the period following the American Civil War, industry developed rapidly in the Northeast, spreading westward into the Upper Midwest. With its high labor cost but good access to materials inputs and a very large and well-integrated market U.S. industry developed along different lines from Europe's and had relatively limited export markets. In the 1860s iron ore was discovered in NE Minnesota and by the mid-1890s, after a good deal of investment by John D. Rockefeller and others, mines were in production, supplying high grade ore at low prices. The ore itself was not really tradable, as large ships could not sail from Lake Superior to the Atlantic before 1959, but it was shipped very economically and in vast volume by Lakes steamer to steel mills in Ohio and Indiana, allowing them to produce steel products at prices significantly below those of European producers. Along with parallel trends in other resources this served to catapult to the U.S. to world leadership in manufacturing. All the virtues and advantages that Americans love to celebrate did play a part, to be sure, but the key was the availability and exploitation of resources.
At the time, the Minnesota Iron Range was a unique resource and thus a unique advantage. China has scarcely any such unique resources, but has been especially active in exploiting the resources it does have, and thus has gained an advantage, How long this will last is largely up to the U.S. and Europe.
Like
Reply
The EU and NATO will be key to the success of Europe as a major player in global economics and influence. Keeping members united in goals and actions while allowing room for member sovereignty is no easy task.
I wonder if NATO will eventually view Trump’s US as a hindrance to NATO’s mission, and politely dis-member it.
Like
Reply
The US may be losing it’s dominance in the age of drones, but just wait until the Trump class battleships and all those coal plants come on line.
Like
Reply
AI development is accelerating because the US has the advanced chips but most importantly the creative edge in Anthropic and Open AI and others. The recent directive issued by the US Commerce Department prohibiting foreign nationals from using Anthropic’s latest technology raises the specter of the US turning the spigot off at its discretion leaving Anthropic users both in the US and abroad under US domination.
Like
Reply
Don’t forget that all those Ukrainian drones rely on Chinese rare earths for their motors, and Chinese batteries.
Like
Reply
And the most horrific thing? We have lost our credibility.
Like
Reply
If Trump is an aberration, which I think we will know this winter, I believe that the United States will rejoin Europe on a more equal basis, and if Xi’s China does not become an aggressive menace, especially vis-a-vis Taiwan, there’s a chance for the future. The Putin, Trump,Netanyahu Axis of Evil doesn’t stand a chance, if the other three power centers are against them. With climate change on the horizon, it’s essential that the world put tho old belligerent, aggressive, tribalistic past behind us and strive for a peaceful eco sustainable future.
Like
Reply
I have a ‘meta’ comment. The preceding comment of Han Soobin express so well what I think of Paul Krugman that I felt that a meta-comment was more productive: thanking both person and expressing my admiration for both of you.
Like
Reply
Another Substack author argued that it is the number and quality of allies that make a superpower a superpower. Beyond military defeat, the departure of allies has also massively weakened the United States.
Like
Reply
Thank you for this analysis, sad as it is for me as a refugee from a country formerly in the Soviet bloc to see the U.S. so diminished by the party that has set itself up to destroy democracy. Hurray for Ukraine!
Like
Reply
Trump is jealous of Zelensky. His dropping Ukraine was his big blunder like Iran.
Like
Reply
I wonder if fundamentally Citizens United has turned elected officials into those who can be bought and why we have such an incompetent and corrupt government. Wall Street loves it.
Like
Reply
Great first draft!
Like
Reply
Paul, you are so darn good.
Like
Reply
Next up we need Prof Krugman to research the real meaning behind these riots for Trader Joe’s bags. It must be some profound economic indicator, I’m sure of it
Like
Reply
Losing to Iran is not as visceral as losing to Trump in our own country. No one before had tried or wanted to destroy democracy. How could Europe look to us for help when they're one erratic moment away from betrayal by a narcissist’s manic paranoia? At the same time that Roe v Wade and the Voting Rights Act have been turned aside we have cabinet level officers proudly tattooed with Third Reich deities. The US simply can't be trusted. We are a dangerous breed of war mongers fighting the crusades. The problem is that a Trump icon believes that everything in the US he wants he gets. At times it seems we celebrate a victory for the last time. Just this morning I saw the NY Knicks victory parade in NYC and as Karl Anthony-Towns raised the trophy above his head I couldn't help thinking if this is the last time we see anything without Trump's visage emblazoned upon it? I saw NYC firemen and police with smiles. An ancient art returned to the faces of Americans. Was this a reminder of what's to come or just a cherished memory?
Like
Reply
I think your audience later today will appreciate this talk as much as I did. It is so interesting. Thank you!
Like
Reply
I am so grateful for your relentless efforts to find perspective in these chaotic times. Thank you!
Like
Reply
6d Edited
Hello Paul & fellow readers.
Good luck later today with your presentation.
I agree with pretty much everything that Paul points to. My following questions are points of curiosity of my own.
- at c. 11.5 mins into the talk, Paul states that Europe isn’t a major oil/ gas producer. But American readers should also know that the renewables sector in Europe is just one part of a mosaic. France produces a lot of power, and exports it to energy-poor neighbours such as Italy. A lot of French power generation is nuclear. Likewise, Norway drills and sells large volumes of gas and oil on the open market, and is still actively developing its fossil fuel sector. This provision has significantly dented the challenge of moving away from Russian gas and oil, and also provides support while the Strait of Hormuz is closed. It’s important to remember that Norwegian strategy is focussed solely on commercial ends, not political ends.
- at about 17.5 mins into the talk, Paul mentions Ukraine’s strategic success currently with drones. Sadly, I’m not an economist but there is an ‘economics year 1´ lesson there. Both sides (Ukraine & Russia) were losing huge numbers of soldiers on the front line, and around the time that Trump & Vance were publicly humiliating Zelensky in the White House, Ukraine was struggling to replace their dead soldiers with new soldiers. That equation has changed, the front is now a fairly wide ´kill zone’ without soldiers and the front is essentially frozen. Ukraine has effectively made its own ‘cards’ as a response to the withdrawal of US military support. This is not a zero sum game. Hezbollah are learning from Ukraine in their counter-attacks on Israel. Netanyahu’s decisions will have to change too to deal with the new realities which are developing in Lebanon.
Lastly, a personal comment from me. Large sections of US society will have to adapt to the ‘realities after Trump’. Losing the ‘top dog’ place is just one of several major changes coming at the US. My own view is that without changing the serious problems within the US (the bitter partisan divide which poisons politics and policy, the challenge of balancing the federal books, the ‘decline’ of the US relative to the rest of the world, not just China, and the knock-on consequences for economic and political security in the US), the US’ decline will steeper and more disruptive. So, charity, and geo-politics, begins at home, dear Americans.
Anthony
Like
Reply
Thanks PK. Yikes.
Like
Reply
I have learned SO much about Economics from you it is Incredible! And I can’t thank you enough! I may have to drop my subscription due to financial constraints and I will miss your full Content but I will appreciate you Always!😢
Like
Reply
Thank you for your expertise and clear communication on your preview Geopolitics after Trump. I feel like that info is important for " common folks" to know right now.
Like
Reply
Yeah, but?
Europe isn't a single nation-state and the EU is a modern, bureaucratized Articles of Confederation lite at 50 cents on the dollar.
Take climate change and any hopes of getting the full globe on the same page.
China and the US are all that matters.
Like
Reply
Best to get off the "bigly" bandwagon--maybe aspersion-- to avoid nitpicking by those seeking an opening to cast doubts on the arguments. The acoustical and historical usage analyses say it was more likely "big league," allowing for some rushed mispronunciations.
Like
Reply
The great epic of Japan, the Tale of the Heike, begins with a famous Buddhist reflection on impermanence: "...the prosperous must decline. The proud do not endure. They are like a dream on a summer night. The mighty must fall." So it is with America. It reached global financial dominance a little over a century ago, by 1916, as Europe committed suicide in the First World War. World War 2 devastated Europe, the Soviet Union and East Asia, but left America the undisputed supreme miltary and economic power in the world.
That was not going to last as the rest of the world moved on in ways America fostered. World War 2 was the last major American victory. Korea was a bitter struggle ending in a stand-still, Vietnam a humiliating defeat. After the tens of millions dead in Mao's reign of mad cruelty, China stepped out into the world and became again the great power it had always been in history. The Soviet Union fell and Russia revived rule by a Czar and secret police under Putin, just another corrupt petro-state but with nuclear missiles.
Iraq was an unforced error by America, pushed by its hawks and Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein on false pretenses. The Bush, Jr. administration could have got out of Afghanistan honorably in 2002. It chose not to do so because of American delusions of remaking the country. Iran was worse than a crime against international law planned by Netanyahu, a trap for Trump's vanity and ignorance. It was stupidity, as Napoleon's minister of police said about the assassination of the Duc d'Enghien. Countries in decline throw up leaders who accelerate the fall. America has stayed true to that pattern in Trump and his team of crooks and incompetents..
Like
Reply
Great speech...I agree with you. I think that the US is heading towards a third world country. China and The EU will dominate.
Like
Reply (1)
In her book "Inventing the Renaissance", Ada Palmer points out that few empires have lasted as long as the United States has.
Like
Reply
The one and only thing trump has gifted us with is clarity of who we are as a nation. We are a country mired in hate for our fellow immigrants, hate for American's who are not white and male, hate towards any entity that goes against ones personal beliefs on climate and health. We are a country of ignorance of selfishness and of laziness...90 million people did not vote in 2024 ignoring the glaring and obvious facts that a felon, rapist and misogynist might be our next president. trump 2.0 has shown us who we are as a country and who we are on the global stage. We can no longer be trusted! The world knows and knew who trump was and now they have gotten smart and have moved away from us. The sheer idiocy of our country has shown the world that we can no longer be trusted as an ally and friend to democracies.
I say this with a heavy heart as I am an American who has been on the streets protesting, making calls to my congressmen and senators, writing postcards non-stop and donating to highly talented YOUNG democrats running for office. I honor all of those who are doing the same and doing even more but shame for our country cannot be silenced in me.
Like
Reply
I don't see ANY democrats calling out this debacle and fighting for sanity. They are still in hiding. It's a shame. trump and Maga hatters are a cancer on the country, but silent democrats are like silent heart disease.
Like
Reply (1)
Make a contribution to the campaign of any Democrat and you'll get more mail calling out this stuff than you can handle.
Like
Reply
I am angry. I liked the US being so powerful. This had a price. We let other countries have advantages in trade, some but not all that much. We had all of those allies and we were committed to providing some military protection, sometimes that had to be an uncertain amount of protection - which the State Department and the Military kind of figured out. We also were providing aid to other countries, particularly Africa, not all that much as a sub 1% of GNP, which was saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people - and at the same time giving us huge hunks of Soft Power. We were suffering from a lack in industrial policy - which Biden (!!!) was beginning to address. But now the Qintillionaires are running the country, and only in their imagination protecting their interests. So now we have lost Hard Power, Soft Power, Economic Power, and the neo-nazis love it.
Like
Reply
Excellent.
Like
Reply
What American Oligarchs don't understand are, betraying Ukraine is betraying Europe, and attacking Iran is attacking all Arab nations.
That's what happens when a nation worship money disguised as "stable geniuses".
Like
Reply
Trump just gave a terrorist state, Iran, $300 BILLION! Hezbollah must be celebrating in the streets. And Trump cuts Obama care, other health subsidies, and research into disease and other medical research, medical aid to other countries and research funding to universities! I live in looney land.
Like
Reply
The US failure in Iran is a failure of leadership as is the burning refinery in Moscow, which highlights the fact that the first quarter of the 21st Century marks the fall of the 20th Century hegemons. If Ukraine can succeed in joining the EU, it will catapult the EU into a dominant position.
Like
Reply
Krugman is a geography guy so I thought when he talked about military power he would bring in geography.
Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter.
Like
Reply
6d Edited
It's obvious, now, that the U.S. is a third rate power. If Ukraine prevails and becomes an EU country, Europe's economic size and military capability will increase substantially and combined with thier alliances with other countries around the world would push the U.S. to a distant third position.
Like
Reply
Sure, China has rare earth's and that's, like, really important. Sure. But we have **checks notes** a whole bunch of Apps you can download from your local App store that were paid for by Venture Capital.
Hah! Beat that China. We've got Nip Alert.
In all seriousness, if we don't handle the situation with China effectively, all of the rare earths they control is going to make it very, very hard for us to produce the batteries that make renewable energy work. I'm not a Musk fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe we need to:
1. look at the possibility of using robots to mine asteroids (in the distant future, I'm not a nut case and believe that this is possible now) and
2. the possibility of solar arrays collecting solar in space and 'wiring' it down to earth. Obviously, the 'wiring it down to earth' bit means wirelessly, which is the big problem with that idea.
Still, advanced research is advanced research and I think both of these are worth the investment now.
Like
Reply
We once had the soft power of USAID and the concept of democracy as an export. We aren't even a democracy any more.
Like
Reply
Professor
Your early comment about supply chains brings back a memory of mine.
Years ago, there was a documentary on PBS showing the dismantling of a Tupperware factory. They were boxing up all the machines and sending them to China. The foreman who was probably losing his job commented that right now we’re sending the machines to China and they’ll be sending the Tupperware back but eventually they may send other things back that aren’t as friendly. The destruction of American factories has always been something that drove me crazy. No country can be a powerhouse with only a financial sector. You can thank the financial services industry and Wall Street for the industrialization of the United States. They had the idiotic belief that if you tied yourself with other countries economically and financially, that would be a disincentive to have any kind of confrontational with that country. That mentality is sophomoric when Wall Street pushed for these things I couldn’t believe the level of or lack of understanding of geopolitical politics. That was an epiphany for me that Wall Street and the ““ smart kids“ were really just stupid at least this floor is understanding world politics all they really cared about was making a quick buck your discussion today proves that I was right all along. There needs to be a fundamental change in this country. I really don’t think we have the people in power to make those changes.
Like
Reply
Under Trump, and his crew, we have discounted ourselves. The billionaire grift is a major red flag to all powers. In a just world we would bring down their influence, unfortunately, I fear they will attempt to seduce other countries by use of the monetary means. But hopefully, I am not giving them enough credit. As always, thank you, Paul.
Hegseth must be court marshaled. IMMEDIATELY. Trump is simply going to die, naturally. The rest of that crew MUST be held accountable. No dilly-dallying around. We are a nation of over 350 million, the select few have no way of skirting responsibility. We owe it to all nations. We are going to grievously suffer for years.
Like
Reply
This isn't relevant to current talk but why is it that Kevin Warsh exudes a creepy vibe. Not a nice thing to say but.....
Like
Reply
Perhaps the subject-object in this statement should be reversed: Cheap Shahed drones damaging Patriot missiles?
Like
Reply
Paul, what is the role of Canada in all this?
Like
Reply
We were so convinced to be way on top in military, political and economic power.. Trump has brought that delusion to a harsh collision with reality. There is a list to how much damage we can do to others with the help of those powers. So they cannot be used to force others to do things that are strongly against their own self interests. Back when we had allies, we could add their powers to ours and achieve remarkable things. China is SO happy that Trump has permanently weakened those alliances. You would almost think they had bought enough $Trump coins to get him to do that.
Like
Reply
Based on other recent posts here (thank you!), AI dominance is the new US choke point of choice for many public and private sector movers and shakers. It explains the valuations mark up hysteria, but because leading AI models are so increasingly expensive, unproven as a near-term productivity catalyst, and easy to switch out of for cheaper versions, AI is an unlikely new super power kingmaker. Rather, AI’s use may only amplify the US’s weakening position outlined here. Could the AI fervor end as less a first-mover advantage than massively misspent capital that never attains the wished for role as winner-takes-all economic/monopoly cudgel? More like electricity, steam, railroads … the current unregulated variety of AI, for all but the most specialized and esoteric applications, is more a genie sans bottle than a next one-nation-controllable hegemonic lever.
Like
Reply
For once, Trump’s intuition on his version of the deal is a masterstroke. He recognized that Iran, buoyed by its unique geography and the intensity of the resistance it demonstrated against the awesome military of a super duper power, earned it a middle super power status in the region.
Those howling that Trump has capitulated, the neocons like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, still inhabit in the dark ages of the 60s thru the 2000s.
Trump had no great choices. His advisors were wimps and gave him false reports from the battlefield. Netanyahu took a so- called ally for a sucker and lured him into a horrible war that enabled Iran to literally destroy US bases in the Middle East.
Short of obliterating Iran with nukes, the adversary showed it could withstand punishment for existential reasons.
And remember, Iran was the victim of an unprovoked attack by Israel and the US.
If there is a country that ought to have any grievances against the US, it is Iran. America disrupted its secretive aspirations in the 1950s, imposed a brutal Shah on the country, crippled it with sanctions, and on and on. And then attacked it.
So, Mr. Trump DID NOT capitulate. In his own unconventional way, he got this one right. The petroleum world’s reserves would be completely depleted within a month, and people would be howling about gas prices.
An Iran as a medium power in the Middle East will serve as a counterbalance to the pogroms in the area. We may not like that it is a theocratic state. But there are plenty of theocracies in the region that we haven’t attacked. For once Mr. Trump did the right thing acknowledging the realities on the ground and demonstrating the ART OF THE DEAL!
Like
Reply
I’d argue capacity isn’t the same as will. Paul’s right about the math. Europe’s an economic superpower whether it believes it or not, and the last eighteen months have done more to expose American limits than anything since Vietnam. But there’s a gap in the piece, and it’s the gap that actually matters going forward.
He treats Europe’s rise as something that’s just happening to it. The world tilted, America stumbled, and Europe inherited a bigger seat at the table almost by default. That’s true as far as it goes. It’s also a description of capacity, not will, and those are not the same animal.
Spend enough time inside an institution and you learn it decides what it’s capable of long before it decides what it wants. Capacity tells you what’s possible. Will tells you what actually gets built. Europe has spent eighty years organizing itself specifically to avoid the kind of unified action a superpower needs to make fast, and the muscle memory doesn’t disappear because Washington had a bad year.
Twenty-seven countries, twenty-seven finance ministries, a parliament that can debate a comma for a month. Having lived there the better part of a decade, I can tell you that’s not a caricature. It’s just a Tuesday. And it’s not a flaw in the system. It is the system, built on purpose after a continent burned itself down twice in one century. The European Union exists to prevent any single country from accumulating the kind of unilateral power that converts an economy into a superpower. You don’t get to keep that design and also get the speed and decisiveness of a superpower. Pick one.
Europe moved fast in 2022, and that’s worth taking head on. Russian assets frozen in weeks, energy decoupling, a sanctions regime built and coordinated faster than anyone expected.
But look at what made that speed possible. Sanctions and energy policy don’t require any country to give up control of its own military or subordinate its foreign policy to a Brussels decision. They’re economic tools that twenty-seven governments can each apply domestically while pointing in roughly the same direction. Real power, the kind Paul’s describing, requires something harder: a unified defense posture, a shared nuclear umbrella question nobody wants to touch, and the willingness to let one continental interest override twenty-seven national ones. Nothing about 2022 required that kind of surrender. Nothing in the years since has either.
Institutions that aren’t built for fast, unified decisions don’t get faster because the alternative becomes obviously necessary. They get faster because something forces them to, usually something violent and close to home. Even 2022, the fast example, was a reaction to tanks crossing a border, not foresight about where the world was headed. Necessity moved the needle. It has to keep showing up before institutional culture actually shifts, and defense integration is a much bigger ask than freezing some assets.
American weapons looking obsolete against cheap drones isn’t really a story about technology. It’s a story about institutions that built their identity around one model of power and can’t recognize the model expired. Europe has the opposite problem and the same root cause. It built an identity around never letting any single actor move fast, and now speed is exactly what the moment demands.
Power doesn’t transfer to whoever has the better numbers on a spreadsheet. It transfers to whoever can act while the other side is still in committee. China knows that. Washington doesn’t know it yet because the cost hasn’t been painful enough. Brussels doesn’t know it yet because the structure won’t let it.
Like
Reply
The wind and sun are great natural resources! If only Putin would relent. The bombings of Madrid and London during WWII just made people madder. Demoralizing yes but they only steeled resistance. If only he could see peace was the best legacy. Ukraine’s resourcefulness is extraordinary and if Germany and other European countries go into drone production they will be formidable indeed. In terms of metaphors I’ll take the Knicks level skilled model of politics and governance over the cage fighting model any day although some of the trump syncophants seem to be short term confused… the damage and lives lost is grievous
Like
Reply
The main power that will make Europe more successful in the long run, is that it has found the most productive way to harness capitalism.
The exploitive and predatory capitalism we have in US is strangling itself and Trumps corruption is just a natural outcome of out of control end stage capitalism will produce.
The Chinese strong central authoritarian controlled and run capitalism, is wasteful because it is way to easy for it to put massive resources into wrong and unproductive ideas (from corrupted but powerful officials).
Europe has the right lack of strong central control, yet the ability to institute needed industrial policies and harness destructive impulses of capitalism. No strong central power and authoritarian leader that can pursue wrongheaded ideas for long. Yet if something is obviously causing damage, the conglomerate of decentralized power can make the right decision.
Like
Reply
Geopolitics has become a witches brew.
Like
Reply
Well said, you covered all the bases and showed the US as it is, Europe as it is and China as it continues to want to be. The US can become stronger if it hones in on what is important, which it won't under the current administration. It will take a lot of voters to change the course of what is happening here.
Like
Reply
Two things I take away from this analysis:
1. America, or at least some Americans (who might hold political power now), have twisted what used to be called American exceptionalism into recalcitrance and hubris. Not a healthy or winning combination.
2. Elon Musk is now worth, at least on paper. roughly 1/30th the GDP of the United States. Also probably not a healthy or winning combination.
Like
Reply
Comprehensive and important presentation. It is helpful to understand what has been said in terms of global power - not just economic but also military power and sane leadership. It seems critical to have all the components.
Like
Reply
Thank you for this brilliant summary of the rapid shifts in power that are taking place. The implications of 2.5 years more of our current policy and direction coupled with the effort it will take to unravel it is what concerns me as an American and an investor
Like
Reply
There may be a day when a war is won with Air Power, but that isn't today, Iran the Ukraine proved again air power is critical to winning when the infantry has a major role i.e. boots on the ground. If we are choose to start another war, don't believe the promises unless part of the promise is to bring the infantry into it. Better yet, stop fighting wars of choice and concentrate on the areas that make America great (freedom, opportunity, universities, R&D, and many more.
Like
Reply
Cogent. Thanks.
Like
Reply
Paul Krugman Podcast
Notes on economics and more
Notes on economics and more
Subscribe
Listen on
Substack App
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
YouTube
RSS Feed
Appears in episode
Recent Episodes
5 hrs ago•Paul Krugman
Jun 20•Paul Krugman
Lunch Money with Paul Krugman and Heather Cox Richardson
Jun 18•Paul Krugman and Heather Cox Richardson
Jun 13•Paul Krugman
Jun 8•Paul Krugman
Jun 6•Paul Krugman
Learning from a Mentally Ill President
May 31•Paul Krugman
Ready for more?
Subscribe