Russia and the US Both Want to Finlandize the World
As president of the United States, Joe Biden kept using a peculiar phrase that showed two of the many ways in which he was a foil for his successor, Donald Trump: The 46th president was a bad communicator but a good geopolitical strategist; the 47th is the opposite.
Over and over again, Biden all but gloated that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted 'the Finlandization of NATO' but instead got 'the NATOization of Finland.' Finlandization and NATOization each have five syllables and mean little to ordinary Americans, who might have pictured generals and admirals spending more time in the sauna. You won't hear such stilted oratory from Trump, who prefers punchy monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon words. As a way of communicating grand strategy to voters, Biden's phrase failed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Merz says US in 'strong position' to stop Putin, Trump says 'let them fight for a little while'
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told President Donald Trump he is in a "strong position" to stop Russia's war in Ukraine, to which the president suggested maybe the world needs to "let them fight for a little while." "America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," Merz said, while also referencing the U.S.'s role in ending World War II on the eve of the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the turn of events that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. "So let's talk about what we can do jointly, and we are ready to do what we can." Merz called for more pressure to be placed on Russia in coordination with European allies. Trump responded by providing an analogy of two kids fighting, and suggested perhaps it was "too early" to break up the fight between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don't want to be pulled," Trump said. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart." Trump said he gave that analogy to Putin in his call with him on Wednesday and said he told the Kremlin chief "maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot." Reporters asked Merz, who has been an ardent supporter of Ukraine and recently lifted Germany's existing strike bans, if he agrees with Trump that "fighting it out" was the way to proceed. "I think we both agree on this war and how terrible this war is. And we are both looking for ways to stop it very soon," Merz said. "I told the president before we came in that he is the key person in the world who can really do that now by putting pressure on Russia, and we will have this debate later on again, how we can proceed jointly between the Europeans and the Americans. "I think we are all… having the duty to do something on that now, to stop it after three and a half years, which is really terrible," he added, making it clear without directly contradicting the president that he did not agree with Trump. "We are on the side of Ukraine, and we are trying to get them stronger and stronger just to make Putin stop this war. This is our approach," Merz added.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Biden adviser calls Jean-Pierre ‘kinda dumb,' deletes tweet, says she's not a ‘genius-level Black woman'
As criticism mounts from within Biden's world against former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and her new book, one ex-aide lambasted the now-Independent ombudswoman as "kinda dumb" — a tweet he deleted but later stood by. Timothy Wu, now a Columbia Law professor, was former President Joe Biden's "architect" of antitrust policy whose faculty bio claims he also coined the progressive term "net neutrality" in 2002. In a now-deleted tweet, Wu wrote: "from a [White House] staff perspective, the real problem with Karine Jean-Pierre was that she was kinda dumb." "[She had n]o interest in understanding harder topics. Just gave random incoherent answers on policy," Wu added in the trashed tweet. The X account "I work with my word" replied to the original tweet, calling it "pretty racist," and the tweet was later deleted, but the reply remained. Below the reply, Wu added a new line of commentary, saying the Biden White House was "full of genius-level Black women. [Jean-Pierre] was not one of them." In response to another X user asking Wu whether Trump White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt understands executive policy, the professor said a good ombudsperson will "meet with policy staff and try and understand what the administration is doing and why." Fox News Digital reached out to Wu via his Columbia faculty office, where he has taught since 2006. The former Biden adviser was also a Democratic primary candidate for New York's lieutenant governorship in 2014, and also worked in the Obama administration and at the Federal Trade Commission. Jean-Pierre announced Wednesday that she left the Democratic Party and has become an Independent while revealing her upcoming book: "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." She was mocked and criticized by several people in Biden's orbit besides Wu, including one who said, "I wouldn't ignore what Karine has to say, but it's not an account in which much weight will be invested — just like her briefings." "At noon on that day [that Biden left office], I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically," Jean-Pierre said of her new Independent streak.
Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
