Streetwise Professor

Yesterday Trump announced his plans for a “Golden Fleet,” the centerpiece of which is the “Trump Class” “battleship,” with the USS Defiant as the lead vessel. I will ignore the typical Trumpian bluster, and the novelty of a class of ships with a different name than that of the one first launched, and focus on other issues.

At the very highest level, the most encouraging thing about the announcement is that Trump has prioritized rejuvenation of the United States Navy, and wants to build ships. Hear, hear. About time.

That said, there is the issue of what kinds of ships. Here the announcement raises issues.

One issue that people have dilated on is “ackshually it’s too small to be a battleship,” usually invoking the last US battleship class–the Iowas with their 58,000 ton displacement–to say that the 35,000 ton (guesstimated) displacement of the Defiant is too small to qualify as a true battleship. Well, most US battleships in WWII (the North Carolina and South Dakota classes) weighed in at mid-30000 tons standard displacement. (It is unclear whether the Trump’s advertised displacement is standard or full–if the former, the would be akin to the North Carolinas and South Dakotas, if the latter, about 25 percent lighter). They would be far larger than any cruiser the US has ever launched (even the post-war Bainbridge, Truxton, and Ticonderogas), and even if the stated displacement is full load, be about the same as the Alaska class battlecruisers.

Length-wise, the Trumps would be about halfway between the North Carolinas and Iowas, suggesting that any weight differential would be largely due to a difference in armor and guns–16″ pieces on WWII battlewagons and armor being very heavy. (A 16″ gun weighs about 130 tons, so 9 of them as on all US BBs post-1930 would be about 1100 tons. The armor on a North Carolina weighed around 15,000 tons. Armor is largely superfluous on modern warships. All meaning that any weight differential between Trumps and non-Iowa BBs is due to stuff a WWII battleship needed, but a modern warship doesn’t). The Trumps would be far longer (by about 50 percent) than any cruiser (the next largest ship category after battleship) that the US has ever built.

All meaning that it’s not a stretch to call them battleships, even though that is mainly an issue of semantics and Trumpian framing (similar to the renaming of DoD to the “Department of War”).

My bigger issue with the name is that “Defiant” is in the tradition of British ship names, whereas US names have been drawn from states and cities; famous battles (on land as well as sea); famous personages; or famous US ships from the age of sail.

Other issues are more substantive. Most importantly, regardless of what you call it, is a 35,000 ton surface ship what the Navy needs in the decades to come?

The US Navy definitely needs more non-aircraft carrier striking power. Is a handful or two of large surface combatants the best way to get it? The proposed design will be chock-full of vertical launch system cells, and have other missile launchers as well. Great. But is this the best way to get that? Would more hulls with smaller weapons loads be better? Are large surface combatants an adequate replacement for soon-to-be-retired Ohio Class SSGN subs that currently account for a large share of US conventional seaborne striking power? Are such big ships too vulnerable in today’s world?

Along these lines, the second class of ship announced–a new frigate based on a Coast Guard cutter design to replace the abortive Constellations–has no VLS capability. Is that a necessary compromise to get more ships in the water soon that can do better than 25 knots?

Trump boasted (of course) that the battleship design was in the works during his first administration. That could be more of a bug than a feature. Does this suggest the design is already obsolete (or at least obsolescing)? Or is it better to go with an older design that can be in the water sooner, or a newer design that would only come on-line years later?

One thing that jumped out at me even before reading of Trump’s boast was the inclusion of a rail-gun in the design. Given that the Navy stopped development of this weapon in 2021 due to rail wear and power need issues, I wonder if this indicates that the Department of the Navy just dusted off a shelved ship design. But the rail-gun project was terminated by the Biden administration, which is hardly an endorsement to Trump and his administration. Perhaps the progress by Japan and China in developing this weapon has convinced this administration to rejuvenate the program. That said, the inclusion of an immature (to say the least) system in the design runs contrary to the goal of expanding ship count over the medium term. Perhaps incorporating the capacity in terms of deck space and power supply to support the weapon but not installing it immediately is the way to split the baby.

In sum, like most things Trump, this “Golden Fleet” initiative raises as many questions as answers. And the most important question is not so much the concept or the specific design, as the ability of the United States to build it, in numbers, with speed. The greatest idea evah is worthless unless it is embodied in something that cuts the water, and soon. So the main issue is less with what was announced, than the ability and will of the United States government to make it a reality.

I have long questioned the validity of Chinese economic growth data. The gravamen of my criticism is that measured GDP is disproportionately driven by investment; that investment is really a cost that is intended to produce future benefits (greater output and consumption); and that the incentive system in the Chinese economy causes decision makers to incur investment costs that increase measured GDP, but that the return on these investments is low. As I’ve phrased it, this system has led to an epic, and arguably unprecedented, misallocation of capital. China’s (non-human) capital stock is too large, and misallocated across sectors, which conspire to depress returns to capital to below the level that would be achieved with a market price and profit-driven mechanism for allocating capital.

These heterodox views have been confirmed! By whom, you ask? Well, by Xi Jingping himself!

Chinese President Xi Jinping lashed out at inflated growth numbers and vowed to crack down on the pursuit of “reckless” projects that have no purpose except showing superficial results.

“Inflated growth numbers.” Check. “‘Reckless’ projects that have no purpose except showing superficial results.” Sounds like misallocations of capital caused by a perverse incentive system.

Xi used stark language to call for quality in economic gains and listed examples of wrongdoing such as unnecessarily huge industrial parks, disorderly expansion of local exhibitions and forums, inflated statistics and “fake construction kickoffs.”

Yup. A huge misallocation of capital.

“Xi said officials shouldn’t only be assessed on the basis of the GDP growth rate.” Yup, all driven by a perverse incentive system that leads decision makers rewarded on the basis of GDP-related metrics to invest large sums, the return on those investments be damned.

So Xi has recognized the manifest defects of the vaunted Chinese model, and effectively confessed that much of Chinese growth is junk. The irony of course, is that this is a system that Xi largely created, certainly deepened, and ruled with an iron fist. Meaning that his sudden shock at its consequences reminds me of Stalin’s “dizzy with success” backing off of the Soviet model he created.

But although he has diagnosed the symptoms, and the proximate cause, Xi still doesn’t grasp the underlying cause–the overly centralized nature of the CCP-dominated Chinese economy. No, it does not have Stalinesque five year plans dictating the output of Patriotic Nail Factory #10, but through its manipulation of the incentive system on multiple dimensions the CCP attempts to achieve objectives (most notably, high GDP growth and strategic industries) that it establishes.

Note Xi’s proposed corrective to the system he just admitted is fundamentally flawed:

Speaking at the work conference, Xi called for making “the assessment system more targeted and scientific, so that it works effectively like a conductor’s baton.”

An orchestra following a conductor is centrally directed. A system in which “scientists” set “targets” is not one that responds to profit and price signals, but one that responds to the incentives handed down from the CCP. Indeed, an economy with an “assessment system” other than profit and loss inherently involves massive centralization and control

And Xi’s prescription begs questions. Just what will that “assessment system” involve? What new (centrally directed) incentive metrics will replace the old ones?

Regardless of what Xi (or more likely his minions come up with to meet his command) come up with, it will inevitably result in misallocations, but different ones. Any set of centrally commanded high-powered incentives will be gamed. The games will distort production, investment, and consumption choices. Different incentives, different games, different distortions. But distortions all the same.

Transaction Cost Economics has long recognized the incompatibility of high-powered incentives and manipulable performance measures. This is why low-powered incentives are so pervasive in non-market allocation mechanisms–like inside firms. China is experiencing the effects of failing to understand this, but by advocating the replacement of old manipulable measures with new (though unspecified) manipulable measures Xi betrays a failure to grasp that the fundamental problem is with the centralized system itself, not with its implementation details.

Economic profit and loss in market transactions is a largely unmanipulable high-powered incentive system. But that is an inherently decentralized emergent system, not a centrally managed one. And such a system is completely inimical to one ruled by Party that demands obedience to its leader’s commands.

Meaning that the fact that although Xi has finally recognized the severe faults of one implementation of the CCP’s economic model, he has not–and likely cannot–acknowledge that the problem is inherent in the model itself.

The Eurotwerp meltdown continues.

I blame global warming.

Actually, we all know it’s Trump’s fault.

This German Budestag member is emblematic of the hysteria.

For the first time since WWII, the US is not on our side in Europe. It has sided with the aggressor against UKR and EUR security, seeking to mediate with Russia. The US no longer sees itself as NATO’s leader and treats Europe as a strategic target.
https://t.co/O9X0owL5pr

— Norbert Röttgen (@n_roettgen) December 13, 2025

Such complete bilge. The basic idea is that by forcing Europe to accept reality, the US is siding with the aggressor. Here’s the way the NYT article that Rottgen links to (and is quoted in) puts it:

The future of Ukraine is at the heart of the debate. Mr. Trump is pressing for a settlement to the war on largely Russian terms, and the Europeans see Ukraine as crucial to their own security and are encouraging Kyiv to fight for a better deal.

So, what “better” terms are feasible, actually? We repeatedly hear about “we can’t let Putin win,” the implication being that any end state that does not restore the pre-2014 borders is a grave threat to European security.

OK. Riddle me this: how do you plan to get there? How many Ukrainians will die while Kyiv “fight[s] for a better deal”–that it has no chance of getting? What are the odds that continuing to fight will produce an end result that is worse for European security than what Trump is proposing?

Saying that only the impossible is acceptable and that the US is betraying you by failing to go along is exactly why Trump–and Rubio, and Vance, and virtually all of the administration, and most Americans generally–have had it with you clowns.

In this vein is an article from the FT.

On the one hand, Europe is petrified by the prospects of a Russian invasion–prospects that are completely delusional given the wretched Russian military performance in Ukraine. On the other hand, somehow “strategic stabilisation with Russia” is unacceptable. Er, stabilization would reduce the already de minimis prospects for a Russian invasion of Europe even further. Cold War-esque stasis would be a great outcome for Europe.

That this stasis would involve Russian rule over a blasted, mine- and UXO-strewn, depopulated slice of Ukraine hundreds of miles from the core of the EU is irrelevant. Russian control of a devastated shi!thole (Donbas) has zero implications for Nato. And BTW, Russia already controls 80+ percent of it. Extending the war increases the likelihood it will take more of Ukraine than the Donbas.

In other words, there is no scenario on a set of positive measure that dominates what a cosmically unjust but actually achievable deal in Ukraine would achieve. Indeed, every alternative realistic scenario is worse. For the US. For Ukraine. And for Europe. But they are too idiotic to understand.

Real life often boils down to choosing the least bad option. This is a reality that Europe fails to grasp.

Europe also fails to acknowledge the fact that by letting Russia fuel it, Europe has fueled Russia’s aggression by more than it has supported Ukraine. From the time of Putin’s first incursion in 2014 through 2022, Europe spent between €750 billion and €1 trillion on Russian oil, gas, and coal. Since the 2022 invasion, those expenditures have dropped, but still total around €80 billion. (Some estimates are higher–that’s from ChatGPT). In contrast, European military assistance to Ukraine amounts to a mere €66 billion.

NB: Trump attacked European reliance on Russian energy during his first term. The European (specifically German) response? Supercilious smirking:

Who’s smirking now, bitches? You were warned, but you made your choices. And now you squeal about being forcefully reminded of it. Too bad. Cry more.

Europe complains of having deals done over its head. Er, this is happening because it (again mulishly defying Trump warnings) so underinvested in the military that it is so short on hard power that everything is over its head.

But boys can dream!

I want a EU that strikes fear in Hearts of our enemies
A EU built by Steel & AI
A EU with a heart of Iron 5.0
A EU that lets your fire rise pic.twitter.com/oeqdmcz5B8

— Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn (@GunterFehlinger) December 13, 2025

And I want a super yacht crewed by the Swedish Bikini Team.

My odds are way better than Gunther’s.

An article in Politico (unintentionally) admits what is really going on here:

Hard-right and far-right politicians now lead the polls in France, the U.K. and even Germany. 

Here’s how the power of populist hardliners differs across European countries ? 

? https://t.co/Qdds7Xr6Yy pic.twitter.com/O3zGfyybAL

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) December 12, 2025

The European ruling class is besieged. The peasants are revolting, and the ruling class is channeling its Wizard of Id:

All the while mouthing pieties about “democracy,” the ruling class is doing everything possible to squelch government by the people, from suppressing speech to cracking down on non-ruling class parties. It is deeply insecure, with good reason.

And by speaking bluntly, the Trump National Security Strategy stokes those insecurities. Indeed, the panicked and hysterical European “elite” reaction (which is what you get from X or the media) betrays their sense of weakness and fear. In their hearts, they know he’s right, but to admit it would be a confession of abject failure.

That dying (on purpose) continent, Europe, is in some ways analogous to an octopus, extending its multiple, tentacled arms everywhere. In other ways, however, it is not analogous to that charming species, because its conduct is baleful.

This week saw two prime examples: the fining of X for violation of the EU’s Dystopian Services Act–sorry, sorry, Digital Services Act (DSA)–and its efforts to derail a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

Americans from Musk and Trump to ordinary X users expressed outrage at the EU’s fine because it is part of an effort to censor Americans. The Eurocrats and their media acolytes haughtily respond: “Our continent. Our rules. Follow them or else!”

That’s an acceptable response to some things. For example, if the EU wants to inflict retarded bottle caps on its citizens (subjects would be more accurate), go for it!

But the impact of many, many EU rules is not limited to “their” continent. The DSA is one example of one that impacts people throughout the world. What the EU has demanded of X, and has apparently achieved with Meta and others, is the censorship of everyone’s speech, regardless of whether they live in Paris, France, or Paris, Texas. “Local” regulation of a global service has a global impact.

I could go on and on about extraterritorial EU rules. Those relating to “sustainability” and environmental standards for agricultural product supply chains are another.

And there are a lot of rules. A lot. The EU passes an average of 7 acts every single day.

As bad as the DSA and the like are, they are not nearly as sinister as the EU’s meddling in the American efforts to end the war in Ukraine. Here, led by Macron and Merz, and aided by a Brit pining to rejoin the EU (Starmer), the Europeans are cajoling Zelensky to reject the peace deal Trump is trying to broker. The main string they are pulling is the term involving territorial concessions. After meeting with them, Zelensky announced that such concessions were unacceptable. Meaning that any deal is impossible.

The main argument of the Europeans, and their American co-conspirators like the execrable Mike Pompeo, is “we can’t let Putin win!” If he wins, it’s Munich 1938 all over again and Putin will be emboldened to take the rest of Ukraine before beginning an unstoppable march to the Channel!

Implicit in all this is the apparent belief that somehow the Russians can be pushed back to the pre-2022, and indeed, pre-2014 borders. This belief is beyond delusional.

Ukraine is barely holding on defensively. The prospects for reversing Russian gains are nil.

The Europeans and Zelensky keep on yammering about more weapons. Weapons are not the issue. Bodies are.

Ukraine is at a severe manpower disadvantage relative to Russia. Its prewar population was less than a fourth of Russia’s. And as X interlocutor Yan Naroditsky helpfully demonstrates, its already shriveled military age cohorts have been reduced by more than 30 percent by emigration.

This a snapshot. pic.twitter.com/pdMbJCrNbe

— Yan Naroditsky (@yann140573) December 8, 2025

His dreams of being Erich von Manstein being frustrated, Putin has instead decided to emulate Erich von Falkenhayn and employ a strategy to bleed Ukraine white. And he is succeeding. And his odds of success were always greater than Falkenhayn’s because the manpower imbalance in 2025 is greatly more favorable to him than it was to the latter in 1916.

According to Substacker Sarcastosaurus (whom you should definitely follow to get a far more sobering and realistic take on the war) Ukraine is now recruiting the literally insane from asylums. Many of the Russian advances that you read about occur because Ukraine has no troops to hold some portions of the line.

Compounding this is the criminal stupidity of the Ukrainian command. In a military blunder deja vu all over again, the attempt to hold territory in Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk has resulted in the encirclement of Ukrainian troops. Attempts to break out and break in have failed, meaning these men of a naval infantry unit are likely doomed.

The side weaker in manpower should always choose troops over terrain. Always. Again and again, Syrsky does the opposite. And since he does this with Zelensky’s knowledge and approval, the Ukrainian president is ultimately responsible.

Why? And why is Zelensky so obdurate about a peace settlement that would sacrifice territory? It has happened so often and for so long that charitable explanations–and even incompetence would be charitable–don’t work. The only one left is that he wants the war to continue in order to remain in power–and to keep his fingers in the till.

A cynical desire to have the war continue is also the best explanation of the Europeans’ undermining of Trump’s attempts to end the war. I have little regard for their intelligence, but even they cannot be so stupid as not to recognize that their ostensible objective of kicking Putin back into Russia’s 1991 (2013) borders is utterly unachievable by Ukraine alone. And they know they are not going to put Franz or Pierre on the front line to achieve this. So extending the war means that Ukrainians will continue to die while losing territory rather than gaining it.

In this war of attrition, Putin has made it clear that he is willing to make the human and financial sacrifices necessary to take all of the Donbas. So the best territorial end state emerging from the European “strategy” is the same as what would result if Trump’s proposal is implemented. And the human cost-a cost Ukraine cannot afford-of the European strategy would be vastly higher.

I say “best” because who’s to say that Putin will stop at the borders of the Donbas? Especially since there is a serious possibility that such an outcome would be the result of a Ukrainian collapse, leaving the rest of the country open for conquest. A deal makes it more likely that Putin will stop, at least for now, at the borders of Donbas.

But Putin will use a deal to gather up strength for a renewed war! the Europeans et al say. Maybe. But Ukraine can also use the time bought by a deal to consolidate its defenses–and maybe even attract people back to the country to defend it. Both sides can benefit from a hiatus, but Ukraine needs it far more than Russia.

Macron–he of the 11 to 20 percent approval rating–says that Europe has a lot of cards to play. Yeah, Manny? Other than jokers, what’s in your hand? I call.

Get this: he says “the Russian economy is beginning to experience difficulties.” Beginning! After a war that in a few weeks will have lasted longer than WWII did for the USSR. And again, Putin has demonstrated that he is willing to cram down the economic cost on a (typically apathetic) Russian populace.

These people can only be described as evil. Their willingness to sacrifice countless lives for a fantasy is nothing less than evil.

But they’re our superiors, dontcha know. Their world, their rules, right? Coming from a collection of nations hell bent on committing suicide, and doing a damn good job of it, that is unacceptable.

The White House released a new strategy document, and thereby immediately unleashed a meltdown and freak out in Europe. Why? Well, for one thing, the document prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, then Asia, and then-and only then-Europe. Most provocatively, it puts the onus for protecting Europe on–get this–Europe!: “We want to support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe, while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.”

The nerve!

Europe’s reaction has given new meaning to the term “schizo.”

Europe is like Schrödinger's cat, but with rabies. It simultaneously freaks out that the US is abandoning it while screeching "We are Europe, hear us roar."

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) December 6, 2025

So on the one hand, the US is dismantling the security apparatus that has kept Europe peaceful for 80 years thereby leaving the continent vulnerable to the predatory Russians, but on the other hand, Europe is an economic colossus. Er, shouldn’t economic colossuses be able to defend themselves?

You see, they are so awesome that we need them more than they need us:

If U.S. would kick Europe so badly that trust would be lost, then America has no chance of winning the long term confrontation with China.

Numbers say this: Europe is the second most important trading block for Beijing.

In any global conflict, you need European economic weight…

— Jakub Janda ??? (@_JakubJanda) December 6, 2025

And they’re so sick of us.

I don’t think that Americans quite understand just how sick and tired of their bullshit we Europeans actually are.

— Julien Hoez (@JulienHoez) December 6, 2025

But how dare we leave them to their own devices???

I can assure you that M. Hoez (not hoes!) (he of the .eu email address) definitely does not understand how few fucks Americans give, and are in fact totally on board with curing his sickness by saying hasta la vista, baby!

The threat of which is what set of these tirades. Seriously–reading X posts from Europeans is not recommended, unless you want to get vertigo. How dare you leave! Fine! Go! Good riddance!

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau contributed to the hysteria:

My recent trip to Brussels for the @NATO Ministerial meeting left me with one overriding impression: the US has long failed to address the glaring inconsistency between its relations with NATO and the EU. These are almost all the same countries in both organizations. When these…

— Christopher Landau (@DeputySecState) December 6, 2025

His post makes clear that the US views Europe as dysfunctional, and that we cannot continue to enable this dysfunction. But addressing the dysfunction would require Europe to change its suicidal economic and environmental and immigration polices, and its anti-democratic, anti-liberty policies.

Alas, these policies are near and dear to the EU ruling class and its apparatchiks, like M. Hoez.

Fine. You have a choice. We’ve made the choice clear. If you want to do things your way, you’re on your own. If you want our assistance, change your ways.

My only criticism of Mr. Landau is he gives NATO too much credit. Their pious proclamations of “Transatlantic unity” are purely self-serving attempts to perpetuate their free riding on the US. It’s insincere. Keeping the grift going.

Europe clearly does not want to change its ways and it wants us to protect it anyways.

Sorry. The Free Ride is over.

This all takes place against the background of Ukraine, where the Trump administration is trying to end the war on less than perfect but more than realistic terms. Clearly, the Europeans (including the British) don’t want the war to end, almost certainly because they want Russia tied down so they don’t have to fight it themselves. So they are continuing the pattern set by Boris Johnson of persuading Zelensky to hold out, pledging their undying support. (Meaning they won’t die, but Ukrainians will).

Starmer, Merz, and Macron (average approval rating around 20 percent) have formed a troika to seduce Zelensky.

Have no fear Ukraine! The Three Stooges are here! https://t.co/RCLHDlrUkm pic.twitter.com/dir8UoF8Op

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) December 6, 2025

That’s an insult. To the Three Stooges.

It is exactly this sort of thing that drives this administration further from Europe. A few days ago Rubio called out Macron et al for almost derailing cease fire talks in Gaza through their meddling, and said that they are having the same effect in Ukraine. Which I believe is exactly their intention.

Meanwhile, it is abundantly clear that the US is squeezing Zelensky hard. When the NYT runs articles highlighting the at most one degree of separation between Zelensky and massive corruption, it is the equivalent of putting a horse’s head in his bed. (And what’s with the NYT these days? First it totally discredits the WaPo’s double tap story. Then it runs a damning story on the Democrats’ and Euro’s pet–whom Trump despises. Usually if Trump goes one way the NYT goes 180 the other direction).

In brief, Europe is far more trouble to the US than it is worth. Yet it insists on our protection and our deferring to them on matters of national security and economic policy.

And the administration is telling them, bluntly, that those days are over. Hence the lamentations and rending of garments from London to the Elbe and beyond.

An X follower (@bigwheels89) asked me to post on Ken Burns’ new The American Revolution-An Intimate History documentary. I was planning to anyways, but the nudge got me over my usual tendency to procrastinate. So here it is.

Overall summary: decent–not great–with high variance and frequent eye roll triggers.

To start on the positive. The coverage of the military campaigns was very good . The animated maps in particular were very informative. The war was not characterized by a lot of battles–with the combat in the north being pretty much over by summer 1778 and concentrated in 1780-1 in the south–and the documentation on them is much thinner than for the Civil War, but the documentary succinctly summarizes the major engagements.

One interesting military-related discussion was that relating to the differences in the socio-economic composition of the American army between the ~1775-7 period and the post-1777 years, with the army of the former period having more high status, prosperous men, and the latter being dominated by the economically marginal. My family provides an illustration, with one direct ancestor joining the Virginia Continental Line in February 1776 and another joining the Maryland Continental Line in 1778. The former was a descendent of people who had come to the colonies in the 17th and early-18th century, and who owned property. The latter was a late immigrant (1775) who came as an indentured servant.

Visually, the film is quite striking. This is not a surprise, given Burns’ expertise in the medium. But he deserves extra credit here because he lacks the extensive photographic record of the Civil War, which makes finding the right images far more challenging.

Now for the not so positive. Again not surprisingly Burns constantly genuflects to leftist political pieties, especially relating to race and sex. In so doing, he gives a distorted, and indeed biased, depiction of the remarkable people and events of this remarkable revolution.

And he does so right from the get go, with a recitation of the ludicrous myth that the Iroquois Confederacy was the inspiration for the collective American revolt against Britain and the model for American democracy.

Insofar as democracy is concerned, (a) all colonies had some form of self-government dating back to their founding, and didn’t need instruction from the Iroquois, and (b) the Iroquois Confederacy was a pact between different tribes which were not themselves democratic. It was not a model for a confederacy of independent republics.

With respect to providing a model for the United Colonies and/or United States, it’s hardly as if the Iroquois were the only, or even primary, example of a confederation of league of independent states who united in a common cause without sacrificing their sovereignty. The very words “confederation” and “confederacy” make this clear, both being derived from the Latin confoederatio. If it’s Latin, it’s an old idea. The Old Swiss Confederation dates from the 1350s. And the history of Europe is sprinkled with various “leagues” (another meaning of confoederatio). Hell, there were obviously famous leagues in ancient Greece (e.g., the Delian League).

Burns quotes a Benjamin Franklin reference to the Iroquois Confederacy to support his claim. But Franklin’s statement was pretty snarky, basically saying “look, you idiot Americans, even savages can do it–why can’t you?”

Indians play a prominent role in the documentary beyond their supposed inspiration of ‘Merica. This is reflective of historiography of the last 40 odd years, which does elevate the importance of Native Americans. That is largely justified, but one can go too far, and I think Burns does here. For example, he hypes the importance of the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act, which put trans-Appalachia off limits to American settlers. Yes, it was an irritant to the colonists, but it was just one such and arguably one of the least important.

As the documentary makes clear-and everyone with the slightest knowledge knows, Massachusetts, and particularly Boston, were the epicenter of the Revolution and that events there were the primary driver of the independence movement. Boston’s ferment had virtually nothing to do with Indian lands in the West. The Revolution started in one of the eastern-most, most oceanic world-facing colonies. The main Native American shading of Boston’s revolutionary fervor was that the participants in the Tea Party dressed up (badly) as Indians.

And of course there is an obsession about race. Again, the black experience and black contribution to the Revolution were traditionally underplayed, but Burns goes overboard in trying to make up for that.

Yes, it’s good to inform people of the fact that up to 10 percent of the Continentals were African American. But the repeated reminders (e.g., in the part about the Marblehead Regiment (14th Connecticut Continental Line) rowing Washington’s beleaguered army from Long Island to Manhattan after the disaster at Brooklyn Heights) are an irritating narrative tic.

As is Burns’ apparent conviction that it is necessary to remind the viewer after every quotation from an American speaking about “liberty” or “freedom” that this did not apply to “enslaved people.” (Eschewing the word “slaves” is itself a PC tic).

Yes. We know. We’ve known for a long time. Hell, they knew it at the time. Saying it once or twice is perfectly fine but the now-for-a-word-from-our-sponsor regularity is unnecessary and annoying.

It also obscures the fact that the colonists’ desire for self-government and individual liberty was sincere, genuine, strong, and almost unique in the world. And if it was tinged with hypocrisy, so be it: what human endeavor is not? And what’s more, a necessary condition for eliminating human bondage is a belief that “all men are created equal.” Without that belief, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the political dynamic that eventually ended slavery would never have played out.

That is, by obsessing on the hypocrisy Burns denigrates the ideal that (some) Americans were hypocritical about. It thereby obscures the truly remarkable and world-changing nature of the Founding and the Founders, their beliefs, and their actions. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and by hyperventilating over imperfection Burns buries the good.

Along these lines are the repeated references to Lord Dunmore’s proclamation freeing slaves that fled their masters. Burns insinuates that this put the British on a higher moral plane than the Americans.

Hardly. Dunmore’s act was hardly in conformity with, say, Kantian ethics. He was using blacks as a means to achieve his own and his government’s ends. It was pure military expediency with no moral element at all (as Dunmore’s previous acceptance of slavery demonstrates). The persistence of the even more brutal slavery in the British sugar islands further demonstrates that the British could claim no moral superiority over the Americans. Yes, some blacks benefited (though as Burns does note most did not, either dying from smallpox and other diseases or returning to slavery), but this was clearly an unintended consequence of the act.

It would have been OK if the film had checked the diversity boxes and moved on. But too often the diversity boxes overwhelm the truly important narrative.

The Revolution was truly an epochal event. It produced a nation and a government that like all human endeavors were imperfect, but which represented a stunning advance beyond anything seen on earth before. No successor revolution produced anything so remarkable. Indeed, the two most prominent–the French and the Russian–are most notably for the political chaos they unleashed, and the rivers of blood that they caused to flow.

Burns should have taken his cue from someone he claims to admire–Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was acutely aware of the fundamental defect of the founding, and spoke about it often and eloquently. But he also admired intensely the Founding, the Founders, and the foundational document of the Revolution–the Declaration of Independence–written as it was by a slaveholder.

Lincoln knew that the ideal at the heart of the revolution was universal and eternal, and that much of American history up to his day was devoted to trying to realize that ideal. That is why he spoke of forming “a more perfect Union.” That framing acknowledges imperfection. But that involved living up to the ideals of the Revolution–which were unique in human history.

That is, Burns’ documentary is severely undermined by severely misplaced emphasis. He underplays what is truly revolutionary about the Revolution, and overplays the all too human behavior of those who made it. The Founders–and we–deserve better.

The drug boat strike that currently has the Ruling Class hyperventilating into paper bags occurred on 2 September, 2025. Apparently no one–even anonymously–shouted “j’accuse!” to the WaPo. Or if they did, the WaPo sat on it (which would be even more op-like).

A little less than two months later, the Seditious Six recorded their infamous video, and its members–notably Senators Kelly and Slotkin–have been omnipresent, delivering grave warnings about illegal orders. Also, billboards went up outside military bases asking whether soldiers and Marines had signed up to help ICE.

And just like that, when the illegal orders narrative had been broadcast far and wide, the WaPo drops the double tap/”kill them all” hit piece. Which is then presented as Exhibit 1 in the illegal orders hysteria.

Surely all a coinky-dink, right? As if. It is clearly a coordinated information operation. (NB: Slotkin’s job at the CIA-which should actually disqualify her from public office–was related to foreign info ops). Build the narrative the drop in supposed evidence that proves the narrative.

The fact that the WaPo story was so egregiously false that even the New York Times felt compelled to debunk it gives the lie to the total operation. It was never based on truth. A false narrative was crafted, and the story that supposed to prove the narrative was barely tethered to an actual event, and then “sexed up” (like a certain dossier) with inflammatory but false details to start the DC outrage machine.

Don’t be fooled.

You cannot hate them enough.

When the US Treasury torpedoed Gunvor’s bid to buy Lukoil’s international assets, it was the occasion for “serious self-reflection” within the company. Today, a few weeks later, that “self-reflection” resulted in action: the exit of Torbjörn Törnqvist from the company, and the sale of his 86 percent stake to a “management-led” group of insiders. Tellingly, Törnqvist’s family was also shown the door–most notably his son Fredrik whom he viewed as a successor.

In my earlier post on the implosion of the Lukoil deal, I wrote that the Treasury’s plan was “to put the squeeze on Gunvor, because it views the company as Putin’s cats’s paw as long as Törnqvist is in charge.” Today’s developments are consistent with that, and with a continuing squeeze that led him to self-reflect himself into retirement. The suspected cat’s paw has been amputated.

I wonder what-and/or who-persuaded him.

The company named an American, Gary Pederson, as the new CEO. That is not a coincidence, comrades.

Financial terms have not been disclosed. It would be very interesting to learn the price and the financing. Would the US want Törnqvist even as a creditor of the company? And have no doubt: it is the US that has the whip hand in what is going on here.

From the outside it is impossible to assess the justice of the US’s actions, and the accuracy of its suspicions. But they are what they are, as are the consequences. Namely, that there is no doubt that Gunvor is out of Russia’s orbit, and firmly within that of the US.

The latest installment of Operation Undermine came over the weekend, with a WaPo story claiming that the US double tapped one of the Venezuelan drug boats, killing two individuals who had survived the first strike. An illegal order! A war crime! Illegal orders! (With the implication to whoever carried them out should be subject to military justice).

Today the White House said yeah, we did it–and it was legal. This was presumably based on an internal legal finding. So a matter of legal contention, and certainly not so clearcut for the trigger pullers on tap two to overcome the presumption that the order was legal.

Not surprisingly, those calling for SecWar Hegseth’s head conveniently ignore the Obama administration’s rather, shall we say, expansive, claims regarding its authority to whack people–including “collateral damage.” “Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside of Combat Zones.” As the ACLU put it: “The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.”

Kill Americans deemed by the executive branch to be terrorists. So a fortiori that logic would certainly extend to non-American drug runners designated by the USG as members of a terrorist organization.

The ACLU (more properly, the plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi) lost. It lost because the judge accepted the administration’s argument that the case raised “political issues” and was not justiciable. The ACLU did not appeal.

And there the matter has rested for 14 years. Meaning that the precedents set by the Obama administration provide a huge amount of room to cover the boat strikes–including a double tap.

No doubt if the Venezuela strikes are brought to court, some Obama (or Biden) appointed judge will just like that decide that they are indeed reviewable, and matters for the judiciary rather than for the political branches.

There are also historical precedents. In the aftermath of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in 1943, American and Australian planes and PT boats killed survivors–probably hundreds of them–from the transports and destroyers that skip bombing B-25s had sunk.

During the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in WWII US planes and PT boats machine gunned survivors of transports sunk by skip bombing attacks.https://t.co/IkhltGEFy8 pic.twitter.com/3cUWmJqYzG

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) November 30, 2025

Medal of Honor winning “Mush” Morton, commander of the submarine USS Wahoo, also order the klling survivors of a ship he had sunk.

The US justified both actions, claiming that the survivors posed a continuing threat. In the Bismarck Sea, the US argued that survivors that made it to Lae, New Guinea (their destination before the B-25s jumped them) would be able to join the troops fighting Americans there. (As had happened with Japanese whose ships had been sunk near Guadalcanal).

In any event, the Venezuelan boat strikes too are “political questions.” Yes, this has led to a typical DC tempest. But I am guessing that it will be largely confined to the Beltway and the media. The victims here are hardly appealing. Certainly less appealing than the 16 year old son of Awlaki, the American Obama droned. I would wager that most Americans are on board (so to speak!) with wasting drug boats and their crews, and are not too fussed about the means.

The issues here are also too legalistic for most Americans to care. You bomb a speedboat because you intend to destroy it, and crucially, to kill its crew. If you have the legal right to do so–to kill–it makes little common sense to argue that you have to do so with the first shot, and no second shots are allowed. So there’s little or no room for incremental outrage. If the strikes outrage you because you think killing is unjustified here, fine–the double tap shouldn’t add to your outrage. If the first bomb/shot doesn’t outrage you, follow ons shouldn’t either.

And what are the alternatives? The most straightforward one is to let them drown or become shark food. That’s better?

Another is to rescue them–which could put US personnel at risk, and which the US is under no obligation to do. And capturing them would result in something akin to the Gitmo legal circus–which is one reason why the Obama administration found a kill them all, let Allah sort them out strategy appealing. (NB: conceivably the SEALs could have captured Osama during the raid on his compound in Pakistan, but they were under orders to kill him–and did).

A remaining option is to hope their compadres would pick them up . . . which would result in a situation similar to the Bismarck Sea. In fact, a totally understandable tactic would be to let them swim, hope that rescuers arrived, and then whack the rescuers. So be careful what you ask for!

The main reason that the political calculus favors the administration here is that Maduro’s Venezuela is a very malign actor that gets no sympathy from Americans. Drugs are just one item in a long list of particulars. Maduro vectoring gang bangers to the United States is another. (It is no coincidence, comrade, that Venezuelans were one of Trump’s first and foremost targets).

But most importantly, if you list all of America’s biggest enemies/adversaries–Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Hezbollah, drug cartels–Venezuela is their friend. And these involve more than mere expressions of undying fraternal love: Venezuela has received arms from Russia and Iran, massive financial support from China, has historically been a financial and energy lifeline to Cuba in exchange for Cuban muscle to oppress Venezuelans and protect Maduro, and facilitates Hezbollah operations in the Americas. (Riddle me this: Why is Hezbollah operating in the Americas?). From time to time Venezuela has hosted Russian nuclear capable bombers and combat ships.

So this is the execrable regime that the execrable Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, et al, are de facto supporting. As if their subversion campaign was not odious enough, to exploit the US’s actions against an enemy to advance that campaign is particularly disgusting.

And seizing on Trump’s anti-Venezuela campaign is particularly dishonest and hypocritical for those who also claim to be ardent supporters of Ukraine because of Russia, and who claim that Trump is Putin’s plaything. Trump is going after Russia’s main ally in the Americas. Maduro is begging Putin for help. If their harsh anti-Russian stance was principled, they would cheer what Trump is doing.

They are doing the opposite. This demonstrates how unprincipled they are.

Since opposing Trump is their one and only objective, we get Orwellian Oceania Has Always Been At War With Eastasia about faces, and Russia’s deep relationship with Venezuela gets ignored by strident anti-Russians.

Indeed, if you look back the first Trump administration, the political and media left that now freaks out about Trump going after Venezuela/Maduro criticized him for not confronting Venezuela. Back then, when Russian bombers landed in Venezuela the establishment was aghast and demanded action. Back then, too, they fretted over Venezuela’s abetting Hezbollah operations. Not to mention their criticism of Maduro’s anti-democratic actions.

In short, all the “ethics” advanced here are purely situational and partisan. Trump is to be excoriated for giving Putin too much in Ukraine because giving anything to such an evil man is wrong. Trump is also to be excoriated for attempting to take down that selfsame evil man’s most important ally in our own hemisphere.

And the means that they are employing to achieve their partisan ends–undermining the military, and the chain of command in particular–are beyond disgusting. The current frenzy over the double tap cannot be separated from the campaign of the Seditious Six to stir fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the military. The frenzy is just a convenient weapon in that campaign. It is instrumental, not principled.

A military cannot function with FUD. Patton frequently invoked Kipling’s “the unforgiving minute.” Every minute-second, really-matters in combat situations. Soldiers, sailors, and Marines who waste that unforgiving minute wrestling with doubts about the legitimacy of their orders are putting themselves, their comrades, and their missions at risk. Yes, there are edge cases, but the subversion of Kelly’s Antiheroes spreads far beyond such cases, as their their cynical exploitation of killing Venezuelan drug runners clearly demonstrates.