It was clear from day #1 of the Trump -2.0 presidency (or day #25 if waiting for JB Vance’s attacks at the 61st Munich Security Conference) that it no longer considered Europe as a de facto ally, that the European Union should be terminated for being “set up to take advantage of” the USA, and that that its regulations and institutions were attacking freedom of opinion—for far-right parties—and of conducting business—for American companies. The November National Security Strategy published by the White House makes this even clearer and shows how deeply it is aligned with the “great replacement” conspiracy theory of these white supremacy parties, as well as downsizing the Russian menace. Ghastly.
Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP (…) partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness. But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.
The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. (…) The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis. Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States (…) Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism. Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent (…) The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.
Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.
what’s wrong with package comment?!
Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags comment package, Introducing Monte Carlo Methods with R, LaTeX, R, verbatim on May 4, 2012 by xi'anI spent most of the Sunday afternoon trying to understand why defining
[sourcecode language=”text” gutter=”false”]
\newcommand{\era}{\end{comment}}
[/sourcecode]
did not have the same effect as writing the line
[sourcecode language=”text” gutter=”false”]
\end{comment}
[/sourcecode]
until I found there is a clash due to the comment package… The assuredly simple code
[sourcecode language=”text” gutter=”false”]
\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{comment}
\begin{document}
\begin{comment}
prompt, you could embark on an on-line visit of the main features of {\tt R} by typing \verb+demo()+ after the prompt (make sure to test \verb+demo(image)+ and \verb+demo(graphics)+ to get an idea of the
\era
Self-explanatory.
\end{document}
[/sourcecode]
produces an error message:
[sourcecode language=”text” gutter=”false”]
Runaway argument?
! File ended while scanning use of \next.
<inserted text>
\par
<*> moretest.tex
[/sourcecode]
This is quite an inconvenience as I need to compile my solution manual for “Introducing Monte Carlo Methods with R” with the even-numbered exercises commented out or not depending on the version… (Leaving this package out and using the comment command within the verbatim package does not work either because era does not seem to be recognised as the end of a commented part…)
Share:
Like this:
5 Comments »