Nixon called Whitlam a peacenik.
Kissinger agreed: "hardly a heavy wight".
Both were right.



In any case, Ferguson (one s) is always worth hearing.

Like Nixon, Trump is consumed by the paranoia of not appearing to be a man's man, despite his obsession with the song 'YMCA' and Air Force One pilots! God forbid you'd ever see Nixon speaking or acting fruity.

Unlike Nixon, who was capable of feeling a deep sense of shame over his many failings resulting in his reprehensible acts, Trump is impervious to regret and remorse.

To be fair, Nixon was afflicted with a predisposition towards immense self-pity, something you won't find with Trump.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:43am:


And the Whitlam Administration was also terminated.
Important detail, that.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:51am:

But not before Nixon's natural paranoia was prevented from being fully unleashed on the Australian people.

The question now is: will Australian administrations get down on all fours to our 'overlords', as is our culture's natural predisposition - a shiver looking for a spine to run up - and cough up more cash to a Trump Administration, if and when demanded of us, or will we grow a Whitlam pair?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 25^th, 2024 at 10:14pm:


Ferguson’s analysis was particularly striking because it systematically dismantled a narrative that has gained considerable traction in some western policy circles. Indeed, last year’s Consilium conference featured one of that other narrative’s leading proponents, John Mearsheimer. The University of Chicago political scientist argues that Nato expansion provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.


Mearsheimer’s thesis, which aligns eerily with the Kremlin’s own propaganda, has found receptive audiences among those seeking to rationalise western disengagement. Yet as Ferguson demonstrated, it was not Nato enlargement that led to war in 2022 – that is just Putin’s line. Instead, as Ferguson made clear, it was the ongoing appeasement of Russia that paved the way for Putin’s war against Ukraine.

As western support for Ukraine wavers, Ferguson sees parallels between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon that should alarm allies. Like Nixon, Trump sees allies as freeloaders who must pay their way. Like Nixon, he sees the limits of American power and the importance of negotiating with adversaries.

But there is a crucial difference. Watergate destroyed Nixon. Meanwhile, Trump survived impeachment twice. As Trump himself noted: “He left. I do not leave.”

A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand.

We now face what Ferguson terms a new axis – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions.

However, as Ferguson laid out, this is not a repeat of the Cold War, and that is mainly because modern technology has changed the game entirely.

The Cold War limited choices for the big powers: either nuclear Armageddon or proxy conflicts. In contrast, today’s confrontation is more complex. Cyber warfare, psychological operations and economic coercion blur the lines between war and peace.

China’s actions around Taiwan illustrate this perfectly. No shots have yet been fired, but China’s constant pressure through military exercises, cyber-attacks and economic threats make this a new form of war.

The west’s response to the new geopolitical threats hardly inspires confidence. Germany’s regular defence budget amounts to just 1.2 percent of GDP – comparable to Weimar-era defence spending levels when the Treaty of Versailles deliberately constrained German rearmament. Though Germany claims it will meet Nato’s 2 percent target this year, this is achieved only through a temporary special fund (Sondervermögen) and some creative accounting.
https://www.niallferguson.com/journalism

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:24am:




As the new axis relentlessly adds to its combined nuclear arsenal, western leaders seem more concerned by more conventional policy questions than the prospect of World War III.

To Ferguson, this is a dangerous misreading of priorities. Authoritarian regimes study western responses carefully. They coordinate more than we might realise. They share technology, intelligence and strategic insights.

And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan.

When deterrence fails, war often follows. And so, the big question is whether the west still has the power and the will to create a credible threat against potential aggressors – and whether it can demonstrate this resolve early enough to the new axis.

https://www.niallferguson.com/journalism

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:54am:



There has been a huge demographic and cultural shift in the West - US, Europe, Australia - since 1945.

Self-belief and resolve have largely vanished. NATO deterred nobody. The only war won by NATO was against a European country, Serbia.  Everything else - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - ended in slinking off.

Even WWII would have been a probable compromise with Hitler and Japan without Russia.