܀𓂃 Kaori Fujisawa ‎𓈒𓏸𑁍

That makes the whole thing even funnier — the speed of the reassurance betrays how wobbly the commitment actually is.

When Washington rushes out an “unwavering commitment” message this fast, it usually means:
Japan is furious,
the radar lock incident is serious,
they’re trying to pre-empt Japanese escalation or allied doubt.

US backs Japan in dispute with China over radar incident The United States has for the first time criticised China for aiming radars at Japanese military aircraft during a training exercise last week, an incident over which the Asian neighbours have given d...

www.reuters.com/world/china/...

x.com/julianku/sta...

I could only laugh foolishly.

—it absolutely triggers that stupid, involuntary “hehehehe” grin reaction.

It’s the geopolitical equivalent of:

“Don’t worry babe, I would never do anything to hurt you.”
(…while holding a suitcase full of AI chips labeled “For PLA Use Only.”)

Honestly?

Given the entire week of Trump-era chaos, contradictory messaging, and Washington scolding allies while selling H200 to Beijing…

This one clean, unambiguous “Our commitment to Japan is unwavering” line from U.S. State Department is so absurdly out of sync with reality that yes—

Thomas Massie on X: "NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries. Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership. https://t.co/IvRfTH388W" / X NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries. Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership. https://t.co/IvRfTH388W

x.com/repthomasmas...

The Massie Doctrine:
Why contain Russia when you can help it win for free?

LOL

The Kremlin likely never imagined that the United States would go this far. The proposal itself will lead nowhere, but it may only deepen the sense of frustration and distrust among the allies.

At that point the question isn’t “What is the strategy?”
The question is:

“Is anyone in charge actually thinking?”

Because no sober, coherent policymaking process produces this level of contradiction.

This is outsourced deterrence + outsourced appeasement at the same time.

No alliance in the world can function under these conditions.

Michael Sobolik on X: ".@RushDoshi is right to raise this concern. If America believes trade-offs don’t exist (we can win the AI race AND sell chips to China), why should we expect our allies to behave any differently? This is a pivotal moment. If SME controls fall apart, the game is up. https://t.co/fnejJx1w4s" / X .@RushDoshi is right to raise this concern. If America believes trade-offs don’t exist (we can win the AI race AND sell chips to China), why should we expect our allies to behave any differently? This is a pivotal moment. If SME controls fall apart, the game is up. https://t.co/fnejJx1w4s

x.com/michaelsobol...

U.S. to Allies: Take on more deterrence responsibility

U.S. to China: “We will help you accelerate military-AI development — as long as we profit.

Wait… so we must contain a PLA that US are actively strengthening?

Why should we take on more risk if the 🇺🇸refuses to constrain 🇨🇳military-AI growth?

3/PLA military-AI acceleration is the one domain where the U.S. absolutely cannot afford ambiguity

Exporting compute is not a “commercial concession”—
it is force-modernization assistance.

So There is no way to pretend this is separate from military use.

1/
Why should Japan or the Netherlands take political and economic pain
to block SME exports
when Washington is openly profiting from chip exports?

2/ You cannot outsource deterrence while funding the adversary’s capabilities

This is the contradiction that destroys allied trust.

3/Political volatility
4/Senior officials refusing to endorse allies’ assessments
5/Moves to soften language on China in internal documents

If the U.S. won’t guarantee intervention, then the entire “US is unprepared” framing is irrelevant.

Everything in this post relies on one unproven assumption:

The United States would actually go to war with China over Taiwan.

There is zero explicit commitment from Washington.
In fact, recent U.S. behavior creates greater uncertainty:
1/Retrenchment signals
2/Burden-shifting rhetoric

The tweet implies:

US unready → Taiwan must raise budget.

But the accurate logic is:

US uncommitted → Taiwan must build a posture that is not dependent on U.S. intervention.

This has nothing to do with an NYT editorial about U.S. readiness.

It has everything to do with 🇨🇳and 🇺🇸political behavior

Ross Feingold (方恩格) on X: "Long editorial in the @nytimes discusses why the US military is unprepared for war with #China over #Taiwan. Maybe Pres. @ChingteLai should increase his proposed supplemental defense budget beyond the nearly US$40bn he proposed? @MoNDefense @DeptofWar https://t.co/zP2BlhvTQG" / X Long editorial in the @nytimes discusses why the US military is unprepared for war with #China over #Taiwan. Maybe Pres. @ChingteLai should increase his proposed supplemental defense budget beyond the nearly US$40bn he proposed? @MoNDefense @DeptofWar https://t.co/zP2BlhvTQG

x.com/rossfeingold...

The NYT asking whether the US is ready to fight China is beside the point.

The real question is:
What kind of defense posture allows Taiwan to survive even if the U.S. delays, limits, or avoids intervention?

That is the serious strategic conversation.

The NYT keeps asking whether the U.S. military is ready for war with China over Taiwan.

But Washington has offered no indication it would actually fight such a war.

So why not ask the real question?

How does Taiwan defend itself in a world where U.S. intervention is uncertain?

America’s Biggest Bitcoin Miners Are Pivoting to AI — WIRED In the face of a profitability crisis, industrial-scale bitcoin miners are transforming their data centers into AI factories.

Oh no…poor Bitcoin Miners 🙄

America’s Biggest Bitcoin Miners Are Pivoting to AI via @wired.com

x.com/shehzadhqazi...

Global fund managers aren’t predicting a Chinese economic recovery — they’re begging for one.

They’re not bullish on China; they’re bullish on the idea that Beijing won’t wreck their trade again.

This is outsourced deterrence + outsourced appeasement at the same time.

No alliance in the world can function under these conditions.

U.S. → Allies:

“You must carry more of the defense burden.”

Step 2:

U.S. → China:

“We will help you modernize your military-AI systems — for a fee.”

Step 3:

Allies → ??

“So we must deter the PLA while you finance PLA acceleration?”

Signals to China that U.S. red lines are for sale

“You can buy permission slips for critical technology as long as Donald Trump gets his cut,”

then deterrence collapses.

Because deterrence is not only about power —
it is about principle + predictability.

PLA AI development is compute-limited. It is selling time — compressing China’s military-AI timeline. If Japan spends +20% on defense,
but China gets +200% acceleration in AI training capabilities, the net effect is:

Japan falls further behind despite spending more.

This is delegated deterrence + subsidized adversary modernization — a formula that cannot coexist in any sane national-security doctrine.