So, who blew up the Nordstrem pipeline, and why, where only the speculation remains because all the gas pressure was released and methane bubbled to the surface.
Jeffrey Sachs has an opinion on that, as well as having an opinion on Covid.
As to NATO, the sword is the sword, the pocketbook separate. Does that work?
Sachs on Democracy Now, in a semi-debate, semi-agreement.
Did military allies, in NATO, have differing economic world order views?
Aside from views, actions speak louder than words. But there are instances where there is no smoking gun certainty over actions, but speculation leans.
The future of NATO is uncertain. Europe - the EU itself, has different yins and yangs as to relative economic power and policy within that continent. But Trump seems to feel it best to sever EU economic affairs, and with that, to encourage EU nations to find their separate way, militarily. Whether that's a pro-Russia inclination gets a lot of debate and thought. And accusations. Disloyalty to neocon dogma, sure, but is that disloyalty to "America"? Or, best? The choice to accuse seems in parallel to the love of neocon notions of Sole Superpower, etc. And who's pumping that outlook, vs being "America First"? Since the USSR fell into Russia and other nations; neocon ideas grew from somewhere, to serve some outlooks and nations, yes/no?
All Crabgrass knows is what might be found on the Internet. Where to look, and what to look for on the Internet is a matter of taste and biases wanted to be reinforced, that is true, but objective attempts yield what they do, when searching.
Were all on the Internet objective truth, the task of knowing "wha's happening" would be reduced to easier terms.
Debate and thought can arise when web content is either ambiguous, or contradictory, there being truth somewhere where debate and thought may differ and cause confusion.
For now, no further debate and thought within this post.
__________UPDATE__________
Not thought nor debate, but a question - Whether two warring agricultural nations remain at war or settle, does Cargill favor one outcome over the other, or does it simply just do business as it most successfully has, whatever war and peace swings happen?
I.e., is it reactive, or proactive? Or, simply very, very big, but only active with no policy favorites, just a Merchant of Grain doing its thing?
FURTHER: What is Amy Klobucher's view of ag dimensions of Trump's actions on the Ukraine war, with Jake Sullivan a former Klobuchar staffer having reached high ranks in Biden's administration, but with his security clearance now revoked? She is the senior Senator from Cargill's home state. She's critical of Trump/Vance, but has not touched upon grain-trade dimensions/reverberations to any known degree, should the Trump/Putin proposed end to fighting take place. Silent on guns/butter after effects.
Silence is golden? We know wheat and gold are golden.
FURTHER: Closing the loop. When Klobuchar faced staff antagonism allegations, news of a searched for and finally found letter to the contrary from multiple staffers surfaced, and from among numerous others alphabetically listed:
Zack Stephenson Jake Sullivan Rose Sullivan Tom Sullivan
where at least those four have had further government service after being on Klobuchar's staff. The Sullivans were listed in the cited Politico item. Stephenson is a House Rep in Minnesota in a district next to where I live, and has led state efforts to reach sensible marijuana laws. I'm on his email list, believing he may have an even higher level of service in his future while presently agreeing with his current priorities and ideas for Minnesota. The four are politically active people who came out against tales of Klobuchar and staff tensions. Joined in the letter by others.
The beat goes on. For now, Trump controls the executive branch.