upvote
> It is a great plan.

Let's be real here. Nothing this administration ever does is planned.

reply
> Nothing this administration ever does is planned.

You are joking, right? Project 2025 has achieved 50% of its goals in record time[0]. Trump disavowed both it and invading Iran, but make no mistake. Both were “the plan”.

[0] https://www.project2025.observer/en

reply
"this administration" is not running the show. This is going exactly according to someone else's plan.

After the dust settles:

- GCC is knocked down a few notches and that oil and gas money is no longer competing for influence

- US is out of MENA and Centcom will return to Florida; there is no way Arab governments will let US rebuild its bases in their countries. See burning infrastructure, airports, and decimated trade in tourism, air travel, hitech, ... You thought the Orange One thought up the idea of burning all our aliances, pissing off Europe, alarming Asia allies, and making "fortress America" all by his lonesome? Really?

- Israel will be lording it over the area. Maybe they will start having bases on Arab lands.

- China will be at the mercy of whoever now controls Middle East

- Project 2025 is really about controlling us natives here in America when the coin finally (dear lord) drops over here.

reply
The plans to destabilize Syria and Iran have existed since the Obama administration. Trump is just the hatchet man.
reply
There is a stark difference between planning something and actually doing it.
reply
The Syria part was quietly executed under Biden, whose administration deserves full credit. "Destabilizing" means fragmenting, I'm not saying that Assad was any good of course.
reply
Syria was in a civil war since 2015. The US (and Israel and Russia) failed to control their intelligence assets on the ground. Sadly we don't have Hillary's emails like for Lybia, so I can't mock France DGSE for loosing their asset, and control over the rebels, within two weeks.

In Syria it might have taken years, but considering the reaction of the US, Israel and Russia to the sudden Syria push, I guarantee the admin in power wasn't informed. What is more likely is that they lost actionable assets during COVID. At best the CIA was aware but didn't inform Mossad not the US, but that would be giving them a lot of credit.

reply
Great plan for whom? Trump is headed towards Nixon levels of popularity and Nixon methods of ejection with this sort of stuff. The war is hugely unpopular, Trump is less popular, and if gasoline prices stay high and we get involved in a ground war there may be a popular revolution even before Democrats get elected and are able to impeach.

Deals done in Yuan will still get through Hormuz. EU could switch currencies for fossil fuels, get their energy, and further lessen their dependence on a US that expresses nothing but hate and disgust for the EU.

reply
Popularity doesn't matter. The only thing that will remove Trump from office is Jan 20th 2029.
reply
Popularity is the core of everything in a democracy. The reason Republicans are terrified of Trump and fall in lockstep is that Trump can get rid of them via primaries, and that requires Trump's popularity with a small but rabid MAGA base. But Republicans in 2028 will have to survive an election without Trump bringing that base to the ballot.

If Trump's popularity falls to Nixon levels, and the MAGA coalition continues to fracture at the current rate it's falling apart, within a year or tow, there could very well be 60 votes in the senate that go against Trump.

reply
That is probably when he leaves office - but congress can stop a lot of things he is doing if they try.
reply
Nixon method of ejection indeed.

He did say he wanted regime change after all

reply
EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.

Sorry, but this will never not be not amusing. Where Trump being a stopped clock warns the UN about relying on foreign energy and the German delegation laughs as they were shutting down their nuclear and increasing reliance on Russia for energy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

reply
> EU has had a lot of time to recognize the situation they have been in regarding energy.

There is no case of they just needed to pay attention earlier. The problem is known. There is just no good solution. Drastically scaling back energy consumption isn't going to happen any time soon and would harm the economy. So we can choose between Russia, the Middle East and the USA. Best would be of course to reduce fossil use, but that is orthogonal.

reply
There is just no good solution.

Refraining from shutting down their nuclear plants for no good reason would have been a start.

reply
That's not a solution. A solution is something you can actually do.
reply
Trump? The same Trump that threatened Greenland while the EU is relying on US LNG? Indeed the EU should not rely on US energy.

Trump is completely inconsistent anyway. First he blamed the EU for wanting to continue the Ukraine war. Then he periodically floats lifting Russia sanctions. But if the EU were to lift Russia sanctions, that of course would lead to severe repercussions.

Trump is about economic suppression of the EU.

If you say "nuclear energy". The US has imported Russian uranium to at least 2025.

reply
If I were the EU, I'd send a covert ops team to assassinate Putin. Then start talking with his successor and re-establish the Nord Stream deliveries.
reply
You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part, as long as you are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. Conversely, even if the assassination scheme goes exactly as planned, there is no way of guaranteeing that the new Russian leader would be willing to restart gas deliveries until the war in Ukraine has wrapped up. Given that especially the eastern EU countries have absolutely no intention of allowing Ukraine to lose, this seems like a very tall order.

Finally, both Nordstream 1 AND Nordstream 2 still have a gaping holes in them from the bombings so restarting deliveries will probably take several years at least.

All in all, this plan gets only a 2 out of 10 for being impractical, too slow AND depending on factors outside our control. 1 point because it does at least sound spy-ish and proactive.

reply
The problem for Europe is that they have nothing to trade with Russia. They can get better prices elsewhere.

Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.

Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.

Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.

reply
Huh? Even in the US the majority are sympathetic to Ukraine in every survey. Sure we all want no war - but we are not really in favor of no war at any price.
reply
> You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part

Not really. Putin will not deal with Europe honestly.

reply
That could work really well, or it could fail in a humiliating public way and totally confirm+legitimize that regime's paranoia. Huge downsides.
reply
The West is getting very cavalier about murdering the government officials of other countries.
reply
A window in Russia is likely far more deadly than any of the western security services.
reply
Wouldn't they reciprocate the tactic instead?
reply
They could try, but frankly, Russia's not very good at that game anymore. They have lost their mojo. Look how many swings they had to take at Navalny, and their feckless Novichok tomfoolery in the UK.
reply
A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?

A better idea is to try to get Russia to join the EU and use an open market to exert control over the more extreme behaviors and tendencies in Russia. A lot of Russian behavior is based on paranoia (completely justifiable paranoia when you see the way the US is behaving) so perhaps having them in the European fold will chill them out a bit - obviously this is far fetched but it's at least a way to fix this long term.

reply
> A terrible idea, you think the Russians are going to appreciate you killing their leader?

As a Russian? Absolutely yes.

We had a dry run 3 years ago, during Prigozhin's mutiny. He was advancing towards Moscow at freeway speeds, and the population was happily taking pictures. Nobody was organizing barricades, protests, or pro-government rallies.

reply
deleted
reply
Putin is not a mad dictator ruling against everyone’s wishes. He’s a leader of a large establishment elite which shares his views and gets very rich. If you replace Putin, most likely outcome is his replacement will not be very different (and probably worse, since the country will be even more anti-Western after the assassination)
reply
Except, like Trump, they get more stupid as you go.
reply
There must limits to stupidity, mustn't there?
reply
One would think. I don't think we've hit the limit yet.
reply
Nope. Putin _is_ a mad dictator completely disconnected from the realities of Russia. Just like Maduro in Venezuela. So if he's killed, nobody is going to be bothered by this except a few dozen of his closest allies.

Putin's regime is purely authoritarian ("information autocracy") it has _no_ ideology. Moreover, the government in Russia does everything it can to keep the population passive.

And before you ask, Iran was different because it's _not_ an authoritarian country. It's a full-blown totalitarian theocracy with an official ideology and the elites there actually _believe_ in their doctrine. They have a core of people who will die rather than betray it. And most importantly, they have actual institutions that can survive the death of individuals.

reply
Real life isn't a James Bond movie. The next guy in line is more belligerent than Putin
reply
Then kill him too.

Eventually nobody will want the job.

reply
I don't feel like that's working out so great in Iran.
reply
We'll see, I guess. Early days.
reply
That goes for both parties involved in the assassination game, and I'm pretty sure the Russians won't tap out first
reply
deleted
reply
These "decapitation" strikes can't be much more than narcissistic projection. Trump and Netanyahu are "unilateralists" (de facto dictators) and narcissists, and think everyone else must be as well, ergo decapitation strikes must be successful.

It may have been true in the case of Maduro, but the jury is out (we also "decapitated" Hugo Chavez in the early 2000s but he came roaring back).

It is emphatically not true in the case of Iran, Russia, China, DPRK or any state that has been truly sovereign for a couple generations. These states have deep political power structures that don't rely on the whims of one individual.

reply
It really feels like we need to re-read or Orwell to understand how these countries operate. Trump believes the narrative you spelled out above because it's simple and reinforces his personal view, but it's just not true of these long-lived autocratic states. You may see power concentrated in a single individual but the entire system behaves the same way. "Kill the body and the head will die" takes a lot more work & discipline then lopping off a few necks of the hydra and hoping they don't multiply.
reply
This^, also quite bizarre to read all the blood thirsty comments above… what is this, 4chan?
reply
I I where the EU, I would send ops teams to assassinate Bibi.
reply
That would be on-brand for European leadership. It's a good thing European countries aren't shutting down nuclear power plants and increasing dependence on Russian oil and gas...
reply