I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).
The first one is George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia".
Then there's Kissinger, in 2014 ⬇️ He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO".
This is John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome."
This is Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
This is Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning".
This is Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war."
Stephen Cohen, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential"
Whole video worth watching:
This is famous Russian-American journalist Vladimir Pozner, in 2018, who says that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO."
This is famous economist Jeffrey Sachs writing right before war broke out a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia."
This is CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"
This is Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warning in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Paul Keating, 24th prime minister of Australia, writing in 1997 that expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]"
This is former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation"
This is Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warning one year before the war that " [pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level."
He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it."
This is Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation."
This 2008 Wikileaks cable by Bill Burns - now CIA Director - entitled "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" warns that "Russia [viewed] continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine... as a potential military threat". wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/0…
This is British journalist @Itwitius, former Sky News foreign affairs editor, in his 2015 book Prisoners of Geography: for Russia "a pro-Western Ukraine with ambitions to join [EU or NATO] could not stand" and "could spark a war".
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion.
This is George Beebe who used to be the CIA's top Russia analyst who in December 2021 linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky"
This is Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, who wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.”
Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance".
This is Frank Blackaby, former director of SIPRI, writing in 1996 that "any Russian Government will react, militarily as well as politically to [NATO’s expansion]" and that it makes "Europe drift [...] towards Cold War II".
This is legendary journalist @johnpilger who wrote this article in 2014.
He describes Ukraine as having become a "CIA theme park", a situation that he foresaw would lead to "a Nato-run guerrilla war" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Shiping Tang, one of China's foremost International Relations scholars, writing in 2009 that the "EU must put a stop to [the] U.S./NATO way of approaching European affairs", especially with regards to Ukraine, otherwise it'll "permanently divid[e] Europe".
This is Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych in 2015.
He says that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022".
Even legendary Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn saw NATO expansion as "an effort to encircle Russia and destroy its sovereignty".
And of course just 3 days ago we now have NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pretty much admitting that war started because of NATO expansion since he revealed Putin proposed not to invade Ukraine if NATO promised no more enlargement, which "of course we didn't sign"... He also said text blank that Russia "went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".
There you go. This might be the war in history that's been the most foreseen by the most experts - from so many countries - for the longest time.
Incredibly, they were almost universally advocating a clear and feasible way to prevent the war: a commitment to no more NATO enlargement and a neutral Ukraine, like Finland (or Austria) was.
Yet we didn't do that. It really, really makes you wonder...
This also probably belongs here, the then Secretary General of NATO showing an understanding in 1990 that a move eastward was threatening to Russia, and saying that therefore NATO "was ready" not to do it...
To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list.
Why? Does Lesotho apply extortionate tariffs on U.S. products and the U.S. is merely being "reciprocal" here? Not at all, despite what Trump is saying, it's NOT the way these tariffs are defined.
As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc.
Which means it applies the same tariffs on U.S. products as South Africa does, as well as the 3 other members of the bloc: Namibia, Eswatini and Botswana.
So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.
So what gives? Again, the way these tariffs are calculated has absolutely zero relationship with actual tariffs imposed by these countries on U.S. products. Instead, they appear to be simply derived from trade deficit calculations.
Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile…).
Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can't afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income...
The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country's exports to the U.S and declare this - falsely - "the tariff they charge on the U.S."
And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you'll only "reciprocate" by charging half that "tariff" on them.
As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M - $7M)/$235M = 97%. That's the "tariff" Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. "reciprocates" with.
It's extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all.
First of all, there's nothing Lesotho can do about it: they can't change tariffs they allegedly charge the U.S. to reduce the tariff rate the U.S. "reciprocates" with because, again, it's NOT based on any tariff that they charge.
Similarly they can't do much about reducing the trade deficit they have with the U.S. because, again, they simply don't have enough money to buy U.S. products.
Also the main rational Trump gave for the tariffs is to get production back to the U.S., to "bring manufacturing back". 47.3% of Lesotho's exports are diamonds: how do you bring the "manufacturing" of that "back to the U.S."? Anyone can see it makes just about zero sense.
The Lesotho example exposes the fundamental economic incoherence of these tariffs. Rather than addressing actual trade barriers, they punish countries based on trade deficits that arise from structural economic realities. All the more countries like Lesotho which pose zero competitive threat to American industry.
Worse yet, these tariffs will likely make these structural realities even worse: the U.S. is Lesotho's second most important export destination so it's a fair bet that applying 50% tariffs on their products will make people in Lesotho even poorer, and therefore even LESS able to afford U.S. products.
But perhaps the most unfair and detrimental aspect of all this is that these tariffs represent a complete reversal of longstanding U.S. development policy, and therefore a betrayal of countries - like Lesotho - who chose to follow U.S. advice in the past.
For decades the U.S. has used preferential trade access to encourage economic development in the world's poorest nations, recognizing that trade, not just aid, could get them out of poverty and ultimately put them in a position where they too could afford iPhones or Tesla.
They're now effectively penalizing countries for following previous U.S. policy, a lesson which I bet they won't forget anytime soon.
So all in all the irony is painful: in the name of fighting unfair trade, America has just demonstrated what truly unfair trade looks like.
This isn't something designed to address genuine trade issues, but simply a mechanism based on arbitrary math to punish countries for the affront of selling more to the United States than they buy.
The arbitrary math used to define the tariffs (which has nothing to do with tariffs charged on the U.S.) was just unwittingly confirmed by Deputy White House Press Secretary Kush Desai, in a way that shows he himself doesn't understand it 👇😅
This could potentially be quite transformational for peace in Ukraine and for Europe generally: welt.de/politik/auslan…
German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag, citing "EU diplomatic sources familiar with the matter", reports that "China proposed to the EU to participate in the 'Coalition of the Willing'" so as to "increase Russia's acceptance of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine."
Russia has so far vehemently rejected the idea of European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine but could indeed potentially be swayed if China were to be part of the coalition.
Such a move would also of course have the potential to fundamentally change the nature of EU-China relations and mark a huge shift in the continent's security architecture, where China would be an alternative security partner to the US in European affairs.
It would also strategically position Europe in a much more enviable position were it wouldn't be at the mercy of Washington's every whims, and could leverage competition between Beijing and Washington in a way that'd enhance its sovereignty and bargaining position.
All that being said, given the EU's proven history of diplomatic incompetence and strategic inertia, this scenario is more likely than not to remain theoretical.
Some people reply that this could be fake news because this is inconsistent with China's historical position BUT it isn't: China was already one of the guarantor states in the 2022 draft "Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine" negotiated in Istanbul (see screenshot, from here static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…).
2022 treaty on which Lavrov said a peace deal must be based ("Our approach to the potential settlement has not changed: we are ready for dialogue on the basis of the 2022 agreements", mid.ru/en/foreign_pol…) 🤷
Retired PLA Senior Colonel Zhou Bo had also recently said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference that "China could also be part of security guarantees, alongside other powers," depending on the conditions. scmp.com/news/china/dip…
This "China is depleting the oceans with its huge fishing fleets" story is yet another utterly shameless piece of propaganda when China actually proportionally fishes much less than the rest of the world, since - unlike others - it gets the immense majority of its fish supply from aquaculture 👇 (src: openknowledge.fao.org/items/06690fd0…)
The worst culprit when it comes to depleting the oceans is actually Europe, relative to its population size. They fish about 33kg of fish per person per year compared with 10kg for China, a crazy 230% more!
Actually if you read the report it's 13 million tones for China x.com/realSandkraken… Which corresponds to 14.3% of global captures of aquatic animals, which is less than Europe with 15.2 million tones or 16.7% of global captures. This is of course despite China having twice Europe's population...
In other words, Europe has 9% of the world's population but fishes 16.7% of the fishes while China has 18% of the world's population but fishes 14.3% of the fishes.
Now you tell me who is overfishing and who isn't...
Can you even read a graph? China is fishing only about a third the amount of the rest of Asia (13 million tones for China vs 30 million tones for the rest of Asia) 🤷♂️
If anyone wonders how to constitute the China allocation of their portfolio, these tickers, based on seating arrangements, are probably not a bad place to start.
That was actually the basic strategy of a friend of mine, very successful investor in China: he simply studied policy statements very deeply as well as signals like this meeting 👇 to understand what were China's strategic economic objectives and which companies would benefit from this. Just like the US has a "don't fight the fed" investment principle, China has in some way a "don't fight the government" equivalent.
Wow, this is huge. I just tried it myself with a foreign phone number (you can apparently choose any country, see screenshot) and it's true: you can now join Douyin - the Chinese version of TikTok - as an international user.
Which means the Great Firewall is coming down in the most unexpected way: with the world joining the China side of the wall.
Really feels like a Berlin wall moment, except in the opposite direction.
For people wondering where the hell I found the app, given it's not on Western app stores: apkpure.com/douyin/com.ss.…
Zero "TikTok refugee" on here so far that I've seen, pure Chinese content
This 👇 is arguably an even bigger Sputnik moment for China than the 6th generation fighter jet: a Chinese AI Model called DeepSeek v3 rivals - and often surpasses - the latest ChatGPT and Claude models in pretty much all respects for a tiny fraction of the training cost (only $5.5m), and it's open sourced (meaning anyone can use, modify, and improve it).
The fact that it's so cheap to train is particularly important as it completely changes the game of who can participate in advanced AI development. Up until now, the assumption was that you needed hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to train such a model, yet DeepSeek did it with just $5.5m, a sum of money accessible to just about any startup anywhere. Concretely, this means that DeepSeek has just proven that serious AI development is not limited to tech giants.
And their model is not only cheap to train, it's also extremely efficient to run. They use an architecture called Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) where, while their full model has 671 billion parameters (which is huge), it only uses 37 billion at a time. To compare, Meta has 405 billion parameters in their latest Llama3.1 model and uses all 405 billion at a time. DeepSeek V3 is more than 10 times more efficient, yet performs better than Llama3.1 at almost all benchmarks (English, Math, Coding, etc.).
DeepSeek V3's performance at key benchmarks is impressive across the board:
- Crushes advanced math problems (90.2% on MATH-500, vs 78.3% for Claude-3.5-Sonnet and 74.6% for GPT-4o)
- Excels at coding (82.6% on HumanEval, vs 81.7% for Claude-3.5-Sonnet and 80.5% for GPT-4o)
- Can process huge amounts of text at once (128K tokens, roughly equivalent to 100,000 words in English)
- Processes text at 60 tokens per second, about twice faster than GPT-4o
And the craziest part is that it's open-source, meaning that:
- Anyone can download and study the code
- Developers can modify and improve it
- Companies can integrate it into their products without paying API fees
- The entire AI community can learn from it
Lastly, this obviously comes during an interesting context in China-US relations where the US is doing its utmost to prevent China from progressing technologically, especially in AI. As such, this is an absolutely beautiful response by China: "despite all your restrictions, we just built a world-class AI model for 1% of your cost, made it more efficient than anything you have, and open-sourced it for the whole world to use."
It's also a triumph of brains over money and raw power: with its restrictions the US placed China in a situation where it had to use resources more intelligently. As the saying goes "necessity is the mother of inventions"... And here we now are: China may have just changed the rules of the game forever, democratizing the very technology the US tried to restrict and proving, once more, that human ingenuity always finds a way.
Interesting background on the company behind the model 👇