The economic collapse that we keep talking about because of these bloated governments who keep borrowing faster than they can receive money, what will it look like? How will we know we are in the collapse?
Hi Niall, do you think the globalists will eventually implement digital currency, and if so what year do you think it would happen - would it also mean they ban traditional forms of exchange to force it to work?
Hello Niall, do you think that the left in the West are now looking to the Chinese Model, where there is free market capitalism aligned with strict state control in manufacturing, energy, banking and media including new media? Is democracy the least important thing for the left in our western liberal democracies in 2025?
I love watching good-fellows and I’ve read so many of your books. You’re one of the most sane voices on the conservative side, but I must respectfully say that I think you have a blind spot as far as Donald Trump goes. I am a serving member of the British army and I think Stanley McChrystal makes an excellent point about the importance of character as a means of understanding what someone will do when no ones watching, and honestly i sometimes feel like I see you tying yourself in knots to try and over intellectualise the latest thoughtless emanation of Donald trumps mind, to say that trump is doing a reverse Nixon is attributing an understanding of geopolitics that I’m utterly convinced the man does not have. What do you make of this Ukraine peace plan and is this really not just clear evidence of the man’s utter inability to comprehend strategy. To have been utterly committed to this struggle as a soldier for years, seeing the stakes, knowing full well that if Putin and his ilk are not properly addressed I will have to fight, it is incredibly upsetting to see the absolute lightweight in the white house coming out with this half baked ideas on Ukraine, making Eurasian strategy that will affect the lives of millions, as a means of servicing his own ego. This is peoples lives at stake, and OUR way of life. Do you have a rebuttal to that, or are you prepared to admit that perhaps you have allowed your distaste of wokeness and trumps willingness to smash it (something we all agree needed to happen) blind you to the man’s manifest unsuitability to be president?
PS if you can give a recitation of the Maxim gun sermon from empire that would be awesome!
I’m sorry but the claim of nato expansion is pure Kremlin propaganda boosted by people with an incomplete understanding of history. Saying wars because each side thinks it’s right, is saying NATO and Russia are morally equivalent, and the solution is for the West to step back. They categorically are not! Russia isn’t reacting to NATO expansion. Russia is reacting to the existence of independent neighbours. Putin invaded Georgia long before any NATO pathway existed.
He invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine was officially non-aligned.
He has openly said Ukraine is “not a real country”. This isn’t a security dilemma for Russia; it’s revanchism.
Saying “Who protects Russia from NATO expanding east?” Russia has nuclear weapons, the world’s largest army in Europe, and 6,000 warheads.
NATO has never attacked Russia, never threatened to, and has done everything possible since 1991 to avoid confrontation. Putin is not a frightened hedgehog. He is an opportunistic predator. This claim of nato expansion is a fig leaf to hide Russian desires to reinstantiate their lost empire, nothing more!
“Trump wants peace now because otherwise another million die”
How wars end matters a hell of a lot more than when they end. If you look at history you will see this has been the case time after time. WW1 simply paved the way for WW2. Freezing the conflict now doesn’t prevent future dead; it guarantees more dead later. If you reward aggression, you create the conditions for repeat wars. Saying you want to save lives is just showing you don’t understand strategy, it’s because we want to save lives that we need to resolve this war the right way.
Georgia 2008, crimea 2014, Donbas 2014, full scale invasion 2022. And in the future Armenia, Georgia again, etc etc Every “freeze” has produced more war because Russia uses ceasefires to rearm, and is not genuinely seeking peace. Any student of Russia knows this, and I’m afraid the American public, especially the conservative side have a real hard time understanding what the Russian government are like. They’re deeply cynical, nihilistic and corrupt, they are nothing like their people, and it has been ever thus since the time of the tsar!
A “peace deal” dictated to the victim is not peace, it’s capitulation. It would destroy the credibility of Western deterrence, embolden every authoritarian power, and force countries like Poland, the Baltics and Taiwan into far more dangerous positions for decades. If Trump signs Ukraine into a surrender, he is not ending the war, he is postponing it until Russia is stronger.
“Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?”
Yes. It’s simple, deter the aggressor so he cannot continue the war. This is what worked in Europe for 70 years. It’s what prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. It’s what keeps China from attacking Taiwan.
Ukraine isn’t asking for U.S. troops, only weapons. Giving Ukraine what it needs is by far the lowest-cost way to resolve this issue.
“China will take Taiwan anyway”
This comment shows you don’t understand what’s at stake here. AI is the next manhattan project. It can be used to create untold human flourishing or untold human misery, do you really think that the country that controls the flow of chips is going to win or lose the AI race?! What happens to the USA if their adversary acquires the capability to build AGI or ASI?! Taiwan is an existential threat to both sides, and waving it away with fatuous comments like that is not serious. And I’d like to point out its soldiers like me who will have to do the fighting because civilians and politicians won’t take this issue seriously and deter the threat. It will be YOUR countrymen dying in droves if we fail to nip this threat in the bud! For civilians it might seem academic, for me it’s not at all!
“America first, let Europe sort it out.”
Look I’d be the first to admit Europe has absolutely rinsed the US taxpayer and America is justifiably upset and angry about it. Having liberal European blowhards mocking the USA for its homeless and fentanyl problem whilst outsourcing the cost of their national defence to the US taxpayer is truly an abomination and Americans are completely justified in being angry about it!
However that doesn’t take away from the reality that European defence affects the globe, it affects the USA, EU and UK are the US biggest market, having a stable European contingent of allies who share you values is worth its weight in gold! I’d also point out that when 9/11 happened the entire world didn’t hesitate to come to the US aid, Europe is asking for help to give itself time to take over the reigns, withdrawing support overnight would be catastrophic. I have seen with my own eyes the impact of 5 days of stopping intelligence sharing to Ukraine the thousands of lives that were lost because of trump sending a message. It’s not a game!!!!
Not by rewarding terrorism. The USA should be unequivocally supporting Ukraine in order to show corrupt dictators like Putin, Xi, Kim et al that moving your borders by force is not allowed in the 21st century. The USA has an enormous military and enormous economy, whether you like it or not you are the leader of this planet. If the person in charge doesn’t punish law breaking (invading your neighbours to expand your territory) then you send a clear message that this type of behaviour is allowed. If we want to DETER China from having a pop at Taiwan we need to send a clear message, using force doesn’t pay. Basically forcing Ukraine to sign a surrender agreement is a betrayal of our values in the west, people fighting for freedom against a kleptocratic tyrant, should ALWAYS have our support. It’s the principle of it, imagine if Roosevelt had forced Churchill to sign a surrender agreement just so he can be “the peace president”. Appalling!
There is a case that if the USA "should" protect Ukraine from Putin expanding west, then who "should" protect Putin from NATO expanding east? this is why wars start. each side is convinced it is right. If China helps Putin then its like 1984 with constant revolving wars between continents.
I think the way Trump see things is "sign an agreement now, get them to a peace deal, or wait two years and another million or whatever dead. Then sign a similar deal" The critics suddenly being against a peace deal because it isnt perfect and blaming trump for just wanting glory rather than wanting to stop needles death is disingenuous. Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?
Yes Putin is a dictator, but he will die someday.
The chinese will take Taiwan sometime in two years or fifty years time, by force or by agreement. Its a difficult line to tread being the worlds police - this is why trump says america first, if the EU want to police the Ukraine border let them, i dont think the average french or german wants to be a soldier. Its a case of ,ake thebestof whats in front of you now rather than try and meddle in world events, putin has carried out his plans as leader as he has decades at the top, same as XI, the western leaders revolve and there is no consistent ability to stick to the same agenda and get long term stuff done.
I’m sorry but the claim of nato expansion is pure Kremlin propaganda boosted by people with an incomplete understanding of history. Saying wars because each side thinks it’s right, is saying NATO and Russia are morally equivalent, and the solution is for the West to step back. They categorically are not! Russia isn’t reacting to NATO expansion. Russia is reacting to the existence of independent neighbours. Putin invaded Georgia long before any NATO pathway existed.
He invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine was officially non-aligned.
He has openly said Ukraine is “not a real country”. This isn’t a security dilemma for Russia; it’s revanchism.
Saying “Who protects Russia from NATO expanding east?” Russia has nuclear weapons, the world’s largest army in Europe, and 6,000 warheads.
NATO has never attacked Russia, never threatened to, and has done everything possible since 1991 to avoid confrontation. Putin is not a frightened hedgehog. He is an opportunistic predator. This claim of nato expansion is a fig leaf to hide Russian desires to reinstantiate their lost empire, nothing more!
“Trump wants peace now because otherwise another million die”
How wars end matters a hell of a lot more than when they end. If you look at history you will see this has been the case time after time. WW1 simply paved the way for WW2. Freezing the conflict now doesn’t prevent future dead; it guarantees more dead later. If you reward aggression, you create the conditions for repeat wars. Saying you want to save lives is just showing you don’t understand strategy, it’s because we want to save lives that we need to resolve this war the right way.
Georgia 2008, crimea 2014, Donbas 2014, full scale invasion 2022. And in the future Armenia, Georgia again, etc etc Every “freeze” has produced more war because Russia uses ceasefires to rearm, and is not genuinely seeking peace. Any student of Russia knows this, and I’m afraid the American public, especially the conservative side have a real hard time understanding what the Russian government are like. They’re deeply cynical, nihilistic and corrupt, they are nothing like their people, and it has been ever thus since the time of the tsar!
A “peace deal” dictated to the victim is not peace, it’s capitulation. It would destroy the credibility of Western deterrence, embolden every authoritarian power, and force countries like Poland, the Baltics and Taiwan into far more dangerous positions for decades. If Trump signs Ukraine into a surrender, he is not ending the war, he is postponing it until Russia is stronger.
“Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?”
Yes. It’s simple, deter the aggressor so he cannot continue the war. This is what worked in Europe for 70 years. It’s what prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. It’s what keeps China from attacking Taiwan.
Ukraine isn’t asking for U.S. troops, only weapons. Giving Ukraine what it needs is by far the lowest-cost way to resolve this issue.
“China will take Taiwan anyway”
This comment shows you don’t understand what’s at stake here. AI is the next manhattan project. It can be used to create untold human flourishing or untold human misery, do you really think that the country that controls the flow of chips is going to win or lose the AI race?! What happens to the USA if their adversary acquires the capability to build AGI or ASI?! Taiwan is an existential threat to both sides, and waving it away with fatuous comments like that is not serious. And I’d like to point out its soldiers like me who will have to do the fighting because civilians and politicians won’t take this issue seriously and deter the threat. It will be YOUR countrymen dying in droves if we fail to nip this threat in the bud! For civilians it might seem academic, for me it’s not at all!
“America first, let Europe sort it out.”
Look I’d be the first to admit Europe has absolutely rinsed the US taxpayer and America is justifiably upset and angry about it. Having liberal European blowhards mocking the USA for its homeless and fentanyl problem whilst outsourcing the cost of their national defence to the US taxpayer is truly an abomination and Americans are completely justified in being angry about it!
However that doesn’t take away from the reality that European defence affects the globe, it affects the USA, EU and UK are the US biggest market, having a stable European contingent of allies who share you values is worth its weight in gold! I’d also point out that when 9/11 happened the entire world didn’t hesitate to come to the US aid, Europe is asking for help to give itself time to take over the reigns, withdrawing support overnight would be catastrophic. I have seen with my own eyes the impact of 5 days of stopping intelligence sharing to Ukraine the thousands of lives that were lost because of trump sending a message. It’s not a game!!!!
Me saying each side thinks its right, is not suggesting anyone is moral equivalent, these are your words not mine.
You say nato has never attacked russia, never threatened to - then go on about china and taiwan - china has never attacked or threatened to attack taiwan - except you know its there.
"how wars end matter more than when they end" - yes- but the only solution is to wipe out the enemy and fight until they are all dead.
Yes freezing conflict now means more dead later -so what? back to a case for fighting until death?
"if you reward agression, you create the conditions for repeat wars" yes please tell this to starmer as he recognises a palestinian state.
you say "we need to resolve thiS war the right way" - TELL US WHAT YOUR "RIGHT WAY" IS?
On one hand you say what trump is doing is postboning war until russia reloads, and this is bad (so what is your solution) but then go to say "deter the agressor" "it worked for 70 years" Tell uis what timescale is considered an end, and what is a ressurection of a previous conflict? 5 years ? 1000 years?
My point is that Trump is doing the best he can given whats on the table, and any critics dont seem tohave a better idea, only "yeah buts" and such.
Any avenue has drawbacks, and its isnt Americas conflict.
You want to "nip this in the bud" well go on then, carry on.Good Luck.
Yeah, it has. But it expanded because the countries Russia dominated for half a century practically sprinted toward NATO the moment they were free. No one dragged them in. They knew exactly what life under Moscow meant. And Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 at times when NATO wasnt expanding at all, so the whole idea that NATO expansion “provoked” Russia simply doesn’t match the actual timeline. You only end up believing that if you’ve been marinating in Russian propaganda, which they’ve been running since the Soviet era to make themselves look like the innocent giants “encircled” by the big bad West. And unfortunately there are plenty of useful idiots on the conservative side in America who swallow that because they don’t have the depth of knowledge on Eastern European history, so they replace that ignorance with whatever propaganda sounds nice to them.
“You say you’re not implying moral equivalence by saying both sides think they’re right.”
I get the phrasing, but it still frames this as a symmetrical story. It isn’t. NATO has never invaded Russia or tried to annex its territory. Russia invades its neighbours routinely. One is a defensive alliance, the other is an aggressor state. There’s no clever relativism to be had here.
“You say China hasn’t threatened Taiwan.”
Do you actually understand what the US government’s policy toward Taiwan is, or how relations with the PRC were normalised under Nixon and Carter. The entire thing is built on strategic ambiguity precisely because China has always threatened force. China’s Anti Secession Law literally orders the PLA to invade if Taiwan formally declares independence. They run near-daily ADIZ incursions, they fire missiles over the island, they rehearse blockades, and Xi says openly they’ll use force if needed. And a full-scale amphibious landing isn’t even the most likely scenario. What’s far more plausible is a quarantine, where China slowly chokes Taiwan off from fuel, food, chip exports, medicine, you name it. They can do it incrementally, probing to see where the US draws a line, and they can always pull back if they sense real resistance. And they’ll dress the whole thing up in propaganda as “intercepting terrorists” or “public health control” or “anti-smuggling operations” whatever. In that scenario it’s not even clear they need to fire a shot to force Taiwan into submission. And good luck convincing the global south that this is Chinese aggression and not the US being dramatic. Beijing will spin it, and half the world will buy the spin. So again, the comparison you made doesnt hold at all.
“You say the only way wars end is when everyone on one side dies.”
That’s simply not how wars end. Wars end when two sides have negotiating positions that are totally irreconcilable through diplomacy, and the only remaining way to shift those positions is force. They fight until one side is compelled to accept the other’s terms. Right now Russia’s demands are totally intolerable to Ukraine. Demilitarisation, giving up citizens and territory to an invader, accepting no real security guarantees, letting Russia keep what it stole. Ukraine cannot accept that. So either they’re forced to surrender, or they keep fighting. It’s not about how many people die, it’s about who can force the other to the table. And Russia will only negotiate seriously if it believes it cannot achieve its aims on the battlefield. If you slow-roll arms and push Ukraine to capitulate, you’re literally telling Moscow that dragging the war out works in their favour. In that situation, why on earth would Russia make any diplomatic compromises. And what really grates here is the irony that a country founded in a war of liberation from tyranny, a nation that never shuts up about 1776 and “give me liberty or give me death”, can look at people fighting for the exact same principle in Eastern Europe and just shrug. It makes all the performative patriotism feel a bit hollow. Are you a nation built on principle or not. If not, fine, admit it, become Switzerland and focus on money. But don’t lecture the world about freedom while abandoning people fighting for the same thing you supposedly hold sacred.
“You say freezing the war now means more dead later, so what.”
The ‘so what’ is that freezing it in 2014 gave Russia the time it needed to rearm, mobilise, modernise and then hit Ukraine with a full-scale invasion in 2022. That isn’t hypothetical. It’s exactly what happened. Freezing it again just guarantees the sequel.
“You compare this with Starmer recognising Palestine.”
I don’t agree with Starmer on that at all, I think it was a terrible move, but it’s also completely beside the point. Ukraine is a sovereign democracy being invaded for land-grab purposes. Rewarding territorial conquest literally breaks the foundational norm of the UN system and then encourages other revanchist states to do the same thing.
“You ask what the right way to end this is.”
The right way is to ensure Russia can’t do this again. Ukraine has already taken out thousands of Russian armoured vehicles, degraded the Black Sea Fleet, and proven that when it has proper kit, Russia bleeds combat power fast. The path to peace is preventing Russia from being able to regenerate its offensive capacity.
“You ask what timescale counts as deterrence vs a re-run.”
It isnt about counting years. It’s about whether Russia has the capability and incentive to come back. After 2014 they clearly did. A forced peace now collapses deterrence immediately and invites a second round.
“You say Trump is doing his best and critics have no alternative.”
There is an alternative. Help Ukraine win enough that Russia can’t reconstitute for another offensive. That’s cheaper and safer than forcing Ukraine into a surrender Moscow will treat as a breather.
“You say it isnt America’s conflict.”
If Russia wins, Europe becomes unstable, NATO weakens, China is emboldened over Taiwan, nuclear proliferation increases, and global markets take a hit. These things affect America directly whether it wants them to or not. Helping Ukraine now is the cheapest and safest way to avoid a much bigger crisis later. That’s what stopping this early actually means.
I would like to hear your opinion about crypto currency in particular Bitcoin.
In my opinion Bitcoin is essentially indistinguishable from Tulip Mania. Whilst fiat currency is created out of nothing, it is real to the extent that it is required for paying taxes. Failure to pay tax ultimately leads to time in jail. That's what makes fiat currency real. There is no comparable coercive support for crypto and as far as I can tell the only use case for it is to hide the proceeds of crime and a vehicle for speculative 'investment' (relying on the hope of a never ending queue of future greater fools). There is a real risk crypto could in future be regulated out of existence if it hasn't crashed in the meantime.
Is neo feudalism an apt term for a future in which only a few amass and control virtually all the resources, with the rest reduced to a bare subsistence at best?
Is is widely reported that the USA is the richest and most succesfully country the world has ever seen. Is there a strong case for this being true, even with the horrendous deficit?
The 1844 Banking Act meant that – to all intents and purposes – only the Bank of England could issue notes in return for gold. Was this the beginning of the end for sound money?
So he is moving away from writing books with incorrect predictions. There are better people who have written books about money. Can you push back more? You like giving him an easy time when he sells his establishment view of the world.
Would Niall be in favor of the UK, USA, or other major Western country returning to a commodity-backed (gold, silver, rhodium, etc.) currency? Why or why not?
How do you see a war over Taiwan unfolding if it breaks out? could the West still come out on top financially even if Taiwan were ultimately lost? And would it strengthen or weaken Chinas desire to take Americas place.
We are soon entering the season of "It's a Wonderful Life." Evil Mr. Potter calls in the bank's loan to the savings loan. Fearful account holders worry that they will lose their money because of a rumor that the S&L doesn't have their money. A run on the S&L occurs. George Bailey passionately pleads for account holders not to withdraw all of their money, explaining that their money is in the homes and businesses of their neighbors and *that it will be there when they need it.* The whole movie underscores the importance and fragility of the social and legal contracts between borrowers and lenders. Where are we in the West with regards to these social and legal contracts between borrowers and lenders? Is there any way to stop "the run" from happening, and, if not, when will the "run" no longer be able to be held back?
The economic collapse that we keep talking about because of these bloated governments who keep borrowing faster than they can receive money, what will it look like? How will we know we are in the collapse?
Hi Niall, do you think the globalists will eventually implement digital currency, and if so what year do you think it would happen - would it also mean they ban traditional forms of exchange to force it to work?
Hello Niall, do you think that the left in the West are now looking to the Chinese Model, where there is free market capitalism aligned with strict state control in manufacturing, energy, banking and media including new media? Is democracy the least important thing for the left in our western liberal democracies in 2025?
Over all your works, which idea would you most like to tweak because future research or findings has shown it to be false or weak?
I love watching good-fellows and I’ve read so many of your books. You’re one of the most sane voices on the conservative side, but I must respectfully say that I think you have a blind spot as far as Donald Trump goes. I am a serving member of the British army and I think Stanley McChrystal makes an excellent point about the importance of character as a means of understanding what someone will do when no ones watching, and honestly i sometimes feel like I see you tying yourself in knots to try and over intellectualise the latest thoughtless emanation of Donald trumps mind, to say that trump is doing a reverse Nixon is attributing an understanding of geopolitics that I’m utterly convinced the man does not have. What do you make of this Ukraine peace plan and is this really not just clear evidence of the man’s utter inability to comprehend strategy. To have been utterly committed to this struggle as a soldier for years, seeing the stakes, knowing full well that if Putin and his ilk are not properly addressed I will have to fight, it is incredibly upsetting to see the absolute lightweight in the white house coming out with this half baked ideas on Ukraine, making Eurasian strategy that will affect the lives of millions, as a means of servicing his own ego. This is peoples lives at stake, and OUR way of life. Do you have a rebuttal to that, or are you prepared to admit that perhaps you have allowed your distaste of wokeness and trumps willingness to smash it (something we all agree needed to happen) blind you to the man’s manifest unsuitability to be president?
PS if you can give a recitation of the Maxim gun sermon from empire that would be awesome!
I will address each point in turn.
I’m sorry but the claim of nato expansion is pure Kremlin propaganda boosted by people with an incomplete understanding of history. Saying wars because each side thinks it’s right, is saying NATO and Russia are morally equivalent, and the solution is for the West to step back. They categorically are not! Russia isn’t reacting to NATO expansion. Russia is reacting to the existence of independent neighbours. Putin invaded Georgia long before any NATO pathway existed.
He invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine was officially non-aligned.
He has openly said Ukraine is “not a real country”. This isn’t a security dilemma for Russia; it’s revanchism.
Saying “Who protects Russia from NATO expanding east?” Russia has nuclear weapons, the world’s largest army in Europe, and 6,000 warheads.
NATO has never attacked Russia, never threatened to, and has done everything possible since 1991 to avoid confrontation. Putin is not a frightened hedgehog. He is an opportunistic predator. This claim of nato expansion is a fig leaf to hide Russian desires to reinstantiate their lost empire, nothing more!
“Trump wants peace now because otherwise another million die”
How wars end matters a hell of a lot more than when they end. If you look at history you will see this has been the case time after time. WW1 simply paved the way for WW2. Freezing the conflict now doesn’t prevent future dead; it guarantees more dead later. If you reward aggression, you create the conditions for repeat wars. Saying you want to save lives is just showing you don’t understand strategy, it’s because we want to save lives that we need to resolve this war the right way.
Georgia 2008, crimea 2014, Donbas 2014, full scale invasion 2022. And in the future Armenia, Georgia again, etc etc Every “freeze” has produced more war because Russia uses ceasefires to rearm, and is not genuinely seeking peace. Any student of Russia knows this, and I’m afraid the American public, especially the conservative side have a real hard time understanding what the Russian government are like. They’re deeply cynical, nihilistic and corrupt, they are nothing like their people, and it has been ever thus since the time of the tsar!
A “peace deal” dictated to the victim is not peace, it’s capitulation. It would destroy the credibility of Western deterrence, embolden every authoritarian power, and force countries like Poland, the Baltics and Taiwan into far more dangerous positions for decades. If Trump signs Ukraine into a surrender, he is not ending the war, he is postponing it until Russia is stronger.
“Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?”
Yes. It’s simple, deter the aggressor so he cannot continue the war. This is what worked in Europe for 70 years. It’s what prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. It’s what keeps China from attacking Taiwan.
Ukraine isn’t asking for U.S. troops, only weapons. Giving Ukraine what it needs is by far the lowest-cost way to resolve this issue.
“China will take Taiwan anyway”
This comment shows you don’t understand what’s at stake here. AI is the next manhattan project. It can be used to create untold human flourishing or untold human misery, do you really think that the country that controls the flow of chips is going to win or lose the AI race?! What happens to the USA if their adversary acquires the capability to build AGI or ASI?! Taiwan is an existential threat to both sides, and waving it away with fatuous comments like that is not serious. And I’d like to point out its soldiers like me who will have to do the fighting because civilians and politicians won’t take this issue seriously and deter the threat. It will be YOUR countrymen dying in droves if we fail to nip this threat in the bud! For civilians it might seem academic, for me it’s not at all!
“America first, let Europe sort it out.”
Look I’d be the first to admit Europe has absolutely rinsed the US taxpayer and America is justifiably upset and angry about it. Having liberal European blowhards mocking the USA for its homeless and fentanyl problem whilst outsourcing the cost of their national defence to the US taxpayer is truly an abomination and Americans are completely justified in being angry about it!
However that doesn’t take away from the reality that European defence affects the globe, it affects the USA, EU and UK are the US biggest market, having a stable European contingent of allies who share you values is worth its weight in gold! I’d also point out that when 9/11 happened the entire world didn’t hesitate to come to the US aid, Europe is asking for help to give itself time to take over the reigns, withdrawing support overnight would be catastrophic. I have seen with my own eyes the impact of 5 days of stopping intelligence sharing to Ukraine the thousands of lives that were lost because of trump sending a message. It’s not a game!!!!
Well called out.
How would you suggest any world leader "properly address" putin and his ilk? Nuclear war?
Not by rewarding terrorism. The USA should be unequivocally supporting Ukraine in order to show corrupt dictators like Putin, Xi, Kim et al that moving your borders by force is not allowed in the 21st century. The USA has an enormous military and enormous economy, whether you like it or not you are the leader of this planet. If the person in charge doesn’t punish law breaking (invading your neighbours to expand your territory) then you send a clear message that this type of behaviour is allowed. If we want to DETER China from having a pop at Taiwan we need to send a clear message, using force doesn’t pay. Basically forcing Ukraine to sign a surrender agreement is a betrayal of our values in the west, people fighting for freedom against a kleptocratic tyrant, should ALWAYS have our support. It’s the principle of it, imagine if Roosevelt had forced Churchill to sign a surrender agreement just so he can be “the peace president”. Appalling!
There is a case that if the USA "should" protect Ukraine from Putin expanding west, then who "should" protect Putin from NATO expanding east? this is why wars start. each side is convinced it is right. If China helps Putin then its like 1984 with constant revolving wars between continents.
I think the way Trump see things is "sign an agreement now, get them to a peace deal, or wait two years and another million or whatever dead. Then sign a similar deal" The critics suddenly being against a peace deal because it isnt perfect and blaming trump for just wanting glory rather than wanting to stop needles death is disingenuous. Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?
Yes Putin is a dictator, but he will die someday.
The chinese will take Taiwan sometime in two years or fifty years time, by force or by agreement. Its a difficult line to tread being the worlds police - this is why trump says america first, if the EU want to police the Ukraine border let them, i dont think the average french or german wants to be a soldier. Its a case of ,ake thebestof whats in front of you now rather than try and meddle in world events, putin has carried out his plans as leader as he has decades at the top, same as XI, the western leaders revolve and there is no consistent ability to stick to the same agenda and get long term stuff done.
I will address each point in turn.
I’m sorry but the claim of nato expansion is pure Kremlin propaganda boosted by people with an incomplete understanding of history. Saying wars because each side thinks it’s right, is saying NATO and Russia are morally equivalent, and the solution is for the West to step back. They categorically are not! Russia isn’t reacting to NATO expansion. Russia is reacting to the existence of independent neighbours. Putin invaded Georgia long before any NATO pathway existed.
He invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine was officially non-aligned.
He has openly said Ukraine is “not a real country”. This isn’t a security dilemma for Russia; it’s revanchism.
Saying “Who protects Russia from NATO expanding east?” Russia has nuclear weapons, the world’s largest army in Europe, and 6,000 warheads.
NATO has never attacked Russia, never threatened to, and has done everything possible since 1991 to avoid confrontation. Putin is not a frightened hedgehog. He is an opportunistic predator. This claim of nato expansion is a fig leaf to hide Russian desires to reinstantiate their lost empire, nothing more!
“Trump wants peace now because otherwise another million die”
How wars end matters a hell of a lot more than when they end. If you look at history you will see this has been the case time after time. WW1 simply paved the way for WW2. Freezing the conflict now doesn’t prevent future dead; it guarantees more dead later. If you reward aggression, you create the conditions for repeat wars. Saying you want to save lives is just showing you don’t understand strategy, it’s because we want to save lives that we need to resolve this war the right way.
Georgia 2008, crimea 2014, Donbas 2014, full scale invasion 2022. And in the future Armenia, Georgia again, etc etc Every “freeze” has produced more war because Russia uses ceasefires to rearm, and is not genuinely seeking peace. Any student of Russia knows this, and I’m afraid the American public, especially the conservative side have a real hard time understanding what the Russian government are like. They’re deeply cynical, nihilistic and corrupt, they are nothing like their people, and it has been ever thus since the time of the tsar!
A “peace deal” dictated to the victim is not peace, it’s capitulation. It would destroy the credibility of Western deterrence, embolden every authoritarian power, and force countries like Poland, the Baltics and Taiwan into far more dangerous positions for decades. If Trump signs Ukraine into a surrender, he is not ending the war, he is postponing it until Russia is stronger.
“Has anyone got a better plan that results in less death?”
Yes. It’s simple, deter the aggressor so he cannot continue the war. This is what worked in Europe for 70 years. It’s what prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. It’s what keeps China from attacking Taiwan.
Ukraine isn’t asking for U.S. troops, only weapons. Giving Ukraine what it needs is by far the lowest-cost way to resolve this issue.
“China will take Taiwan anyway”
This comment shows you don’t understand what’s at stake here. AI is the next manhattan project. It can be used to create untold human flourishing or untold human misery, do you really think that the country that controls the flow of chips is going to win or lose the AI race?! What happens to the USA if their adversary acquires the capability to build AGI or ASI?! Taiwan is an existential threat to both sides, and waving it away with fatuous comments like that is not serious. And I’d like to point out its soldiers like me who will have to do the fighting because civilians and politicians won’t take this issue seriously and deter the threat. It will be YOUR countrymen dying in droves if we fail to nip this threat in the bud! For civilians it might seem academic, for me it’s not at all!
“America first, let Europe sort it out.”
Look I’d be the first to admit Europe has absolutely rinsed the US taxpayer and America is justifiably upset and angry about it. Having liberal European blowhards mocking the USA for its homeless and fentanyl problem whilst outsourcing the cost of their national defence to the US taxpayer is truly an abomination and Americans are completely justified in being angry about it!
However that doesn’t take away from the reality that European defence affects the globe, it affects the USA, EU and UK are the US biggest market, having a stable European contingent of allies who share you values is worth its weight in gold! I’d also point out that when 9/11 happened the entire world didn’t hesitate to come to the US aid, Europe is asking for help to give itself time to take over the reigns, withdrawing support overnight would be catastrophic. I have seen with my own eyes the impact of 5 days of stopping intelligence sharing to Ukraine the thousands of lives that were lost because of trump sending a message. It’s not a game!!!!
Q Has Nato expanded? yes or no?
Me saying each side thinks its right, is not suggesting anyone is moral equivalent, these are your words not mine.
You say nato has never attacked russia, never threatened to - then go on about china and taiwan - china has never attacked or threatened to attack taiwan - except you know its there.
"how wars end matter more than when they end" - yes- but the only solution is to wipe out the enemy and fight until they are all dead.
Yes freezing conflict now means more dead later -so what? back to a case for fighting until death?
"if you reward agression, you create the conditions for repeat wars" yes please tell this to starmer as he recognises a palestinian state.
you say "we need to resolve thiS war the right way" - TELL US WHAT YOUR "RIGHT WAY" IS?
On one hand you say what trump is doing is postboning war until russia reloads, and this is bad (so what is your solution) but then go to say "deter the agressor" "it worked for 70 years" Tell uis what timescale is considered an end, and what is a ressurection of a previous conflict? 5 years ? 1000 years?
My point is that Trump is doing the best he can given whats on the table, and any critics dont seem tohave a better idea, only "yeah buts" and such.
Any avenue has drawbacks, and its isnt Americas conflict.
You want to "nip this in the bud" well go on then, carry on.Good Luck.
“You ask if NATO has expanded.”
Yeah, it has. But it expanded because the countries Russia dominated for half a century practically sprinted toward NATO the moment they were free. No one dragged them in. They knew exactly what life under Moscow meant. And Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 at times when NATO wasnt expanding at all, so the whole idea that NATO expansion “provoked” Russia simply doesn’t match the actual timeline. You only end up believing that if you’ve been marinating in Russian propaganda, which they’ve been running since the Soviet era to make themselves look like the innocent giants “encircled” by the big bad West. And unfortunately there are plenty of useful idiots on the conservative side in America who swallow that because they don’t have the depth of knowledge on Eastern European history, so they replace that ignorance with whatever propaganda sounds nice to them.
“You say you’re not implying moral equivalence by saying both sides think they’re right.”
I get the phrasing, but it still frames this as a symmetrical story. It isn’t. NATO has never invaded Russia or tried to annex its territory. Russia invades its neighbours routinely. One is a defensive alliance, the other is an aggressor state. There’s no clever relativism to be had here.
“You say China hasn’t threatened Taiwan.”
Do you actually understand what the US government’s policy toward Taiwan is, or how relations with the PRC were normalised under Nixon and Carter. The entire thing is built on strategic ambiguity precisely because China has always threatened force. China’s Anti Secession Law literally orders the PLA to invade if Taiwan formally declares independence. They run near-daily ADIZ incursions, they fire missiles over the island, they rehearse blockades, and Xi says openly they’ll use force if needed. And a full-scale amphibious landing isn’t even the most likely scenario. What’s far more plausible is a quarantine, where China slowly chokes Taiwan off from fuel, food, chip exports, medicine, you name it. They can do it incrementally, probing to see where the US draws a line, and they can always pull back if they sense real resistance. And they’ll dress the whole thing up in propaganda as “intercepting terrorists” or “public health control” or “anti-smuggling operations” whatever. In that scenario it’s not even clear they need to fire a shot to force Taiwan into submission. And good luck convincing the global south that this is Chinese aggression and not the US being dramatic. Beijing will spin it, and half the world will buy the spin. So again, the comparison you made doesnt hold at all.
“You say the only way wars end is when everyone on one side dies.”
That’s simply not how wars end. Wars end when two sides have negotiating positions that are totally irreconcilable through diplomacy, and the only remaining way to shift those positions is force. They fight until one side is compelled to accept the other’s terms. Right now Russia’s demands are totally intolerable to Ukraine. Demilitarisation, giving up citizens and territory to an invader, accepting no real security guarantees, letting Russia keep what it stole. Ukraine cannot accept that. So either they’re forced to surrender, or they keep fighting. It’s not about how many people die, it’s about who can force the other to the table. And Russia will only negotiate seriously if it believes it cannot achieve its aims on the battlefield. If you slow-roll arms and push Ukraine to capitulate, you’re literally telling Moscow that dragging the war out works in their favour. In that situation, why on earth would Russia make any diplomatic compromises. And what really grates here is the irony that a country founded in a war of liberation from tyranny, a nation that never shuts up about 1776 and “give me liberty or give me death”, can look at people fighting for the exact same principle in Eastern Europe and just shrug. It makes all the performative patriotism feel a bit hollow. Are you a nation built on principle or not. If not, fine, admit it, become Switzerland and focus on money. But don’t lecture the world about freedom while abandoning people fighting for the same thing you supposedly hold sacred.
“You say freezing the war now means more dead later, so what.”
The ‘so what’ is that freezing it in 2014 gave Russia the time it needed to rearm, mobilise, modernise and then hit Ukraine with a full-scale invasion in 2022. That isn’t hypothetical. It’s exactly what happened. Freezing it again just guarantees the sequel.
“You compare this with Starmer recognising Palestine.”
I don’t agree with Starmer on that at all, I think it was a terrible move, but it’s also completely beside the point. Ukraine is a sovereign democracy being invaded for land-grab purposes. Rewarding territorial conquest literally breaks the foundational norm of the UN system and then encourages other revanchist states to do the same thing.
“You ask what the right way to end this is.”
The right way is to ensure Russia can’t do this again. Ukraine has already taken out thousands of Russian armoured vehicles, degraded the Black Sea Fleet, and proven that when it has proper kit, Russia bleeds combat power fast. The path to peace is preventing Russia from being able to regenerate its offensive capacity.
“You ask what timescale counts as deterrence vs a re-run.”
It isnt about counting years. It’s about whether Russia has the capability and incentive to come back. After 2014 they clearly did. A forced peace now collapses deterrence immediately and invites a second round.
“You say Trump is doing his best and critics have no alternative.”
There is an alternative. Help Ukraine win enough that Russia can’t reconstitute for another offensive. That’s cheaper and safer than forcing Ukraine into a surrender Moscow will treat as a breather.
“You say it isnt America’s conflict.”
If Russia wins, Europe becomes unstable, NATO weakens, China is emboldened over Taiwan, nuclear proliferation increases, and global markets take a hit. These things affect America directly whether it wants them to or not. Helping Ukraine now is the cheapest and safest way to avoid a much bigger crisis later. That’s what stopping this early actually means.
Sternly worded letters are always the solution.
How soon will the elites use AI benefits to exponentially leave the rest behind ?
I would like to hear your opinion about crypto currency in particular Bitcoin.
In my opinion Bitcoin is essentially indistinguishable from Tulip Mania. Whilst fiat currency is created out of nothing, it is real to the extent that it is required for paying taxes. Failure to pay tax ultimately leads to time in jail. That's what makes fiat currency real. There is no comparable coercive support for crypto and as far as I can tell the only use case for it is to hide the proceeds of crime and a vehicle for speculative 'investment' (relying on the hope of a never ending queue of future greater fools). There is a real risk crypto could in future be regulated out of existence if it hasn't crashed in the meantime.
Do you agree with this or am I missing something?
Is neo feudalism an apt term for a future in which only a few amass and control virtually all the resources, with the rest reduced to a bare subsistence at best?
Is a highly connected world more vulnerable to economic collapse?
There are many examples from biology where systems that are too highly interconnected and too uniform become less robust.
Is is widely reported that the USA is the richest and most succesfully country the world has ever seen. Is there a strong case for this being true, even with the horrendous deficit?
If it were up to Niall, who would be on the £20, £10 & £5 notes?
The 1844 Banking Act meant that – to all intents and purposes – only the Bank of England could issue notes in return for gold. Was this the beginning of the end for sound money?
So he is moving away from writing books with incorrect predictions. There are better people who have written books about money. Can you push back more? You like giving him an easy time when he sells his establishment view of the world.
Would Niall be in favor of the UK, USA, or other major Western country returning to a commodity-backed (gold, silver, rhodium, etc.) currency? Why or why not?
How do you see a war over Taiwan unfolding if it breaks out? could the West still come out on top financially even if Taiwan were ultimately lost? And would it strengthen or weaken Chinas desire to take Americas place.
We are soon entering the season of "It's a Wonderful Life." Evil Mr. Potter calls in the bank's loan to the savings loan. Fearful account holders worry that they will lose their money because of a rumor that the S&L doesn't have their money. A run on the S&L occurs. George Bailey passionately pleads for account holders not to withdraw all of their money, explaining that their money is in the homes and businesses of their neighbors and *that it will be there when they need it.* The whole movie underscores the importance and fragility of the social and legal contracts between borrowers and lenders. Where are we in the West with regards to these social and legal contracts between borrowers and lenders? Is there any way to stop "the run" from happening, and, if not, when will the "run" no longer be able to be held back?