/kc/ - Krautchan

 >>/52546/
At the moment I think he has over 51% of the popular votes.
And I assume the electoral ones will climb over 300. He got something 305 the like in 2016.
This isn't that high. Bush senior bagged over 400 electorates.

Thinking about Trump's 5 minutes gibberish about Elon Musk's rocket. Quite an Biden-esque moment.

Bez tytułu png
(97.79 KB, 699x808)

It appears you can say "nigger" again. Also Im laughing at the fact that Kennedy got 600k votes despite telling people not to vote for him.

 >>/52548/
Kennedy deserved more to be honest.

zelensky-at-bp-with-o... jpg
(154.63 KB, 738x492)

Trying to get the speech of Zelensky, but Piped doesn't allow filtering and ordering and whatnot.

Wtf. Videos of the arrivals are uploaded, the opening speech of Orbán is up there, Macron talking is up, but no Zelensky. Even the fugging sky news livestream cuts away when Orbán passes the round to Zelensky. What the actual fuck?
I can find articles with a handful of quotes of his speech tho.

Found a speech of Zelensky, but not the one I wanted to listen. And I won't listen this one either he talks in Ukrainian, no translation, subtitles or anything.

2024-07-12T042113Z_14... jpg
(711.81 KB, 1920x1280)

Thinking about what this Trump victory could mean to Hungary. Fidesz/govt media sells it as the next best thing ever, here's the Canaan, hallelujah, we win and all that.
I'm skeptical about this. Orbán likes to talk about how there is a struggle between "decoupling" and "connectivity" within the EU. Former means cutting off ties to certain countries, Russia, China for starter, but essentially could mean everyone who aligned to them. And connectivity means keeping relations and trade with them, not just have a closeted gay club within The West, but to be open to The Rest.
Sidenote: Orbán and co. likes to call the first solution as "globalist", while keeping up with global trade with everyone is not it in their books.
But back to the matter at hand. Trump promoting a trade war with Chiner, does not help with the connectivity as Orbán dreams it for us. And frankly "ending the war on the Ukraine" might also not pan out how expected. Will the trade be restored with Russia? Won't be purchasing cheap gas from them frowned upon? Trump was against the Nord Stream pipeline, I'm pretty sure he won't advocate for restoring it. He wants Europe to buy American gas, or from someone that suits to their foreign politics and economy.
Russia and China remains a competitor for the US, and this Putin's lapdog stuff is just US campaign propaganda.
On the other hand, now that a pal's gonna sit in the White House, we kinda have to dance more for their tune, at least drop the rhetoric of the "rebel" and naysayer.
I'm pretty sure there will be more support to Israel. Hungary and our govt has good relations with Israel, so I'm expecting more propaganda in the media (both Fidesz/govt and opposition) that licks that Heeb hiney shiny. And perhaps more active help in some form. I dunno about that usually there is 0 mentions about various cooperations and partnerships with Israel. Sometimes they show us a photo of Orbán and Netanyahu together.
Frankly all in all that Chinese angle will be the neuralgic point. They were building battery factory here, and perhaps electric car assembly plant. And there are old plans of the Belt and Road, like the railroad between Belgrade and Budapest. And whatnot (see the Chinese university and such).

 >>/52583/
I know that people are saying it could have a negative impact on Australia. Tariffs on Australia are not such a big deal and probably will not happen but the tariffs on China would negatively affect Australia as they are our biggest trading partner and a slow Chinese economy would mean less demand for our resources which means less money for us but also means that there is less demand for the Australian dollar which would reduce the value of our currency and thus cause import costs to rise.
But then the PM has also said their may be opportunity, he said that if Trump starts scrapping funding for Green energy programmes then Australia is well positioned to capitalise on it and pick up some of these green energy industries and investments here. But he did not specify what we would pick up exactly though to be fair Trump hasn't said what he will scrap in the first place either yet.

Hungary will also be negatively impacted by sanctions too though won't you? Given that you are part of the EU. Though we still don't fully know what sanctions will be placed on the EU. A slow China might not be good for you either.

There is also something else that could affect us both, that being Trumps plans to reduce corporate tax. If the US lowers tax rates even further than it already has that's going to put even more pressure on the rest of the world to do the same to stop business relocating to the US.

economic-complexity-h... png
(344.54 KB, 1911x942)

 >>/52586/
Sounds like it is have to be a balancing act.
That green energy thing: perhaps setting up solar farms in the desert. But then that's liek 90% Chinese imports. The hardware I mean.

> Hungary will also be negatively impacted by sanctions too though won't you? Given that you are part of the EU.
According to this thing US is a fairly large export destination for the Hungary, almost 4%. Well it was before the war, would be nice to see fresh data. But whatever happens it will have an impact.

20220901-Anna... png
(309.1 KB, 605x837)

Two years late that I'm posting this, but perhaps all politics thread OP should include it. From where I see this, basically this standpoint is quite prevalent among politicians, except they careful not saying it.
Is she a brave soul to came out this openly? I doubt, probably she knows very well nothing can harm her. So basically this is just a hücpe.
She's foreign minister of Germany.

Calin-Georgescu-999 jpg
(366.02 KB, 1354x1174)

Elena-Lasconi-4-scaled jpg
(472.69 KB, 2560x1439)

Romanian presidential election is heading towards a potentially spicy result.
The neighbours held their presidential election last Sunday, normal schedule, happens every 5 years. It's a fairly important position, since their system is apparently a semi-presidential, their head of state holds some executive powers, and not just a figurehead, who signs the laws.
If a candidate gets 50%+1 votes, then he wins, if not the two top supported candidate will race for the office in a second round. And ofc last Sunday they failed to get a decisive result. So the two candidates are:
1. with 22.94% Calin Georgescu is the leading candidate;
2. Elena Lasconi with 19.18% is the second.

According to Politico:
https://www.politico.eu/article/calin-georgescu-romania-elections-far-right-tiktok-nato-skeptic-russia-ukraine-exports/
...Calin Georgescu is
> A Russia-supporting vaccine skeptic who praises his country’s WWII fascist leaders
Hilarious.
The authors (it needed three guys to write it! lol) of the article really like the word "skeptic":
> a far-right, NATO-skeptic Russia fan,
And even when writing about his sportsmanship we get:
> Georgescu was shown barely breaking a sweat on the running track, flipping opponents in judo — à la Putin
And they give a summary about him at the "Fascist and Communist" heading:
- he said the 1989 revolution was a coup he is right tho
- The West enslaved Romania
- Antonescu and Codreanu were heroes
- he is a conspiracy theorist who denied covid
- strong on Orthodox Christian tunes
Anyway. What I gather from this article that Western leftlib media really wants to paint him in a certain light, and considering noone ever heard of him (outside Romania), they want to give a package what the readers have to think about him.
He runs as an independent with no apparent campaign, he is popular on TikTok, had appearences with Andrew Tate. I think the article points it out correctly that his relative success is the result of the failure of the current traditional parties of Romania, government and opposition both.
What I have against him, that I suspect he has no good opinion about Hungarians. But if he'd win and worked along with our Fidesz govt, it would be okay. I dunno, I really should hear out couple of Székelys what they think.

Elena Lasconi is way less interesting. Member and leader of the third largest party in the parliament, the Save Romania Union (USR). I think they are more like a classic liberal party, similar to Macron's. They have some notion of supporting anti-corruption measures, and small farmers - okay I guess -, and they seem to align much with EU centralization and NATO yes-manning.
I think she will win, the rest of the parties will ask their supporters to vote for her, and she'll get the majority I think with over 30% of the votes while Georgescu will remain in the 20s, since in second round that is enough.

Note: turnaround was 52.56% - and we yet to know the turnaround of the US election...

bibi-n-orban jpg
(64.9 KB, 1024x683)

definitely... png
(98.35 KB, 1140x1471)

Keep postponing to write about this.
Since the International Criminal Court issue an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu our politicians did statements that cast judgement on the ruling, calling it from concerning to scandalous. Considering how strong the Jewish lobby on the Hungary this had to come as a surprise to noone. Those who ignore the impact of Israel on Hungary's foreign politics, they won't understand our relations at all.
Interesting article by NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/world/middleeast/netanyahu-orban-icc-hungary-israel.html
This quotes one of the media statements:
> The arrest warrant against the Israeli leader, Mr. Orban told Kossuth Radio, was “fundamentally wrong” and an “outrageously brazen” political decision that would only lead to “the discrediting of international law” and “add fuel to the flames” of conflict in the Middle East.
Also rightfully notes:
> the Hungarian leader has been one of Israel’s most stalwart allies in Europe
However this is a horribly false view:
> Mr. Orban’s defiance of the I.C.C. as a “continuation and expansion of his anti-establishment logic”
Even opposition here wouldn defy the ICC. It's not the result of going against the grain, and a mistake to lump it with the other contrarian behaviour.
Some stuff about Germany:
> Many are supporters of the court in general, but also allies of Israel.
> This is particularly true for Germany, where a desire to separate itself from the horrors of the Holocaust during Nazi rule has made it wary of criticizing Israel and its leaders.
Citing the instilled collective guilt this openly in one of the most notable newspaper... that's really something.
> One of the countries clearly promising to enforce the arrest warrant should Mr. Netanyahu visit was Slovenia, which in June officially recognized a Palestinian state.
Slobenia, yuo are nazi!

romania-election jpg
(3.41 MB, 4605x3280)

Wanted to write about the crisis of the French government, after the commie coalition partner paired up with Le Pen's party for a vote of non confidence against the PM who only reigned since September after the previous government collapsed in June and Macron wanted to express with an election how the governing coalition is strong but turned out to be weak and they ended up forming a coalition with the commies instead of Le Pen... phew...
But I opened up Politico and saw so many hilarious headlines.

Romanian election, ruling elite shat itself from the result and made the constitutional court to cancel it. The explanation: Putin hacked the election with TikTok.
https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-court-cancels-presidential-election-runoff-tiktok-russian-influence-calin-georgescu/
> The unexpected ruling risks destabilizing Romania, a strategically important NATO member 
Romania is a great springboard to reach Odessa quick for NATO. And also a great springboard to quickly push north to create a NATO controlled zone in western Ukraine. With a destabilized country would be NATO maneuvers more or less easy?
The award for most retarded take goes to George Simion, far-right AUR party leader:
> Shame!!! Coup d’état in full swing, [...] We are not taking to the streets, we will not be provoked. This system must fall democratically!
1. How is this a coup?
2. "we are outraged but we won't show it"
3. demonstrations are part of democracy
4. implications they could overthrow the government with demonstration...
Really he just wanted to say they can't do shit so they won't do shit, but "look at us we are outraged".

Navigating... pdf
(1.74 MB, 0x0)

EU-buys-laundered-R... png
(178 KB, 880x958)

This year I heard lots of talks about how cheap and unregulated Sudaca agricultural products kills EU farmers who have to comply to EU regulations which inflates their expenses. Here's the latest bomb from dear Ursula von der Leyen.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-mercosur-countries-seal-controversial-trade-deal/
> The agreement [...] would create a free-trade zone spanning more than 700 million people
> opposed by France, which fears that a glut of cheap poultry and beef imports would undercut its farmers.
> Germany, on the contrary, wanted Brussels to seize the opportunity to open new markets for its flagging exporters. [...] “This agreement will provide an urgently-needed growth impulse for the German and European economy.”
What the EU will sell to South America? Tractors? Bullwhips?
Btw German ministry of agriculture is very anti-German agriculture who wants to kill farting cows in Germany and beef production. Btw...

Former European Justice Commissioner laundered money. Wow these Western Euros are not corrupt at all and they totally preach from the high ground to us corrupt Eastern Euros.
https://www.politico.eu/article/euros-cash-european-justic-didier-reynders-money-laundering-belgian-national-lottery/

More truck of peace on Xmas market in Germany.
https://www.politico.eu/article/terror-attack-bavaria-christmas-market-foiled-terrorism-isis-islamic-state-extremism-far-right-police/

EU is financing Russia's war against Ukraine.
Basically EU is buying more and more refined oil products from India. India imports more and more crude oil from Russia. The result of the equation: EU is buying more and more oil from Russia.
pdf related
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-vladimir-putin-russia-fuel-imports-india-war-in-ukraine-price-cap-sanction/
My question is: who is the buyer of that oil? Which countries?

Orban-shades jpg
(354.04 KB, 1280x854)

glowie1 jpg
(59.6 KB, 1024x544)

Lastly.
Hungarian intelligence service gathered info on EU investigators who were looking into the finances of Orbán's son-in-law's company. In 2015-2017.
https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-viktor-orban-cia-spy-wiretap-hack-laptop-eu-officials-information-office-budapest-olaf/
Essentially they investigated the use of EU funds, and how they disappear somewhere in the family of Orbán. Meanwhile the IH (the Information Office) investigated them and their findings. They wiretapped them, searched their hotel rooms, shadowed them, and such.
Then in 2018 after the new government formed, our foreign minister (Szijjártó), launched an investigation with the help of the interior ministry into the investigation of the IH! A group of 20 investigators invaded the building of the IH, searched the documents and databases, interrogated the glowies working there. They cited general screening, but they were looking for that specific case. They found little, it seems the original spying went on the down low, they did "white paper" reports, and these weren't filed as any other document. I doubt we'll ever know what was in there.
The local director of Transparency International says it doesn't matter where we look the investigation what the IH did on the EU officials, it was illegal. From his reasoning (which I won't translate I lack judicial jargon) he might just be right.
> Contacted by POLITICO, Bertalan Havasi, press chief of Orbán’s office, said: “We are not dealing with fake news reports.”
Classic. Just recently I read the same quite from an Trump lackey when he was approached by Reuters.

scholz-exit1 jpg
(83.52 KB, 1024x682)

Hohoho.
Scholz failed his no confidence vote. Germany's government is  past tense.
You know, Bernd, it is really reassuring that the two largest economies, and essentially the core of the EU, don't have a stable government. Actually they don't have governments at all.
Early election in February 23rd. I bet the "moderate" parties will do everything so the AfD is left out from the government, despite they are growing into one of the major parties.
Beside them on the left, perhaps radical left another group grows, whom also have anti-immigration notions, and even hit "EU skeptic" tones - their success is not being the AfD because many Germans shy away from the Nazi label.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-lose-historic-confidence-vote/

 >>/52671/
> Scholz failed his no confidence vote. Germany's government is past tense.
This one was surprising to me though. I was not expecting that to happen.

 >>/52672/
His govt. cracked in half can't govern effectively from minority. If they voted him confidence that would meant he can have majority support in the Reichstag Bundestag, at least occasionally. And his work could have continued. That was denied from him the other day.

mpv-shot0003 jpg
(143.9 KB, 1280x720)

Listening Orbán's intro for the end year press conference. So this is just him talking, not replying to questions.
He opens with three points:
1. the Hungarian EU presidency is ending soon, evaluation;
2. the situation of Hungarian and EU politics after the US presidential elections;
3. decisions the Hungarian govt. took and will influence the plans for 2025.
But all before he expresses our condolences towards the families of the victims of the Magdeburg terror attack and to the German people, "we are with them". He says such events happens now on all the Christmases, as if run on by a timetable. These events only happen since Europe is hit by a migrant crisis. Some still deny it or don't see it, but that there is a connection, a causation between migration and the attacks.

1. Hungarian presidency
EU had a summit this week, where they said we have a "successful presidency" behind us. Lots of work was put into this. We already had a presidency, had to put more work now into it. Hungary is/was very isolated in this half a year. But at the end even our opponents congratulated for the work done.
1a. War
We had no room for maneuver.
In the EU there is a deep difference between opinions what should be the strategy of the EU in the Russo-Ukrainian War. One side - which has the overwhelming majority, and their will is enforced right now - says that the war is Europe's war too, as they call it "our war as well". Luckily they don't include us into the "our" - Orbán adds. They say it's a European war and we have to participate, only the way of participation is under debated - what to send, what not, when to send, how much to send. The other opinion is ours: this is not our war. This is a war of brothers between Slavic nations, and we should isolate, and not jump into it, and escalate it with out participation. This difference between opinion is in the European public thinking since the breakout of the war.
Since as president we could only express common EU opinions, our hands were tied. Despite this we could do peace mission which we separated from the presidency. I think they did not separate it.
1b. the question of Schengen Area
Schengen Area divides the EU into full and not actually full members. Bulgaria and Romania was outside of it and they could feel they weren't full members. For 10-13 years the expansion of the Schengen Area was blocked, can be known by which countries when and for what reasons, but this "blockade" was resolved with lots of negotiations. The two aforementioned countries will join now. Life becomes very different now for them, and for Hungary as well, since we are on the border of Schengen.
Now Hungary can move border guards and police away from the Romanian border.
1c. The worsening EU competitiveness
The Dragi report describes the situation quite radically. The Hungarian presidency led the creation of a document called Pact of Competitiveness, which is a plan to stop the decline, and reverse the process. Generally these types of "pacts" only touch typically leftist issues, such as social or climate problems, far from capitalism. It is really hard to create a consensus in a lefty Europe in questions of market, capital, investment, efficiency - so we are proud we managed.
1d. the outlook of the EU agriculture after 2027
Another 7 year cycle starts then. Huge funding goes into it, and negotiations and debates already started behind the scenes. Al 27 ministries of agriculture made an agreement on how the future should look like. This doesn't mean that debates end, they start now in earnest, but now everyone can see what are we debating about, and what goals we want to reach.
So as for the EU presidency, all in all it is worth to pick fights, and struggle, because results are showing.

mpv-shot0004 jpg
(139.02 KB, 1280x720)

2. US presidential election
Is there a new life after the US election? In Brussels they think: there is none. He says he experienced that in Brussels they behave nothing changed, they do what they did up until now, and continue. European elite did not noticed anything - he says legally this is right, since Trump is not sworn in yet. He noted the promised tariffs.
Europe should realize we will live in a new world, the Western approach to migration, family, traditional values, gender problems will change drastically. Economic ties will change, the view of the war will change, and the sanctions against Russia as well. He says we will move from war times into the period of peace. We are glad about it. We, Hungary can only lose on war. This is why we gave all the humanitarian help to Ukraine, but did not sent weapon. We secured the entry of 1.5 million Ukrainian citizen, most of them crossed the country, freshest data says 80 thousand live still here. We helped Ukraine with energy, electricity, training of doctors, saving of lives, and we continuously giving peace suggestions, right now there is a Hungarian suggestion on the table for cease fire and exchange of prisoners.
The war has economical impact, war means war economy as well. He says we can close this now and a new era can come. War can end, peace can begin. With the peace the embargo that plagues the European economy can end. The sanctions have to be lifted as much as possible. If this is managed successfully, the period of inflation will end as well, economic boom can start and prosperity can return to Europe.
We represent this standpoint in the EU debates. We always hit wall for now, because only a few small countries see this similarly, all the big players not recognized this yet. The majority block in the EU Parliament made a pact to keep everything how it is now as long as possible, and they decided to pressure all the countries to accept that in the next 5 years they all pay the GDP's 0.25% into the coffers for Ukraine's war support. According to us this point now is superseded, this is the past, we should talk about the next step. We should decide instead how to put this money not into the prolongation of the war, but into its closing, we should invest in the peace.
The US presidential election is in accord with the change in the EU Parliament and formation of the Patriots group (Patriots for Europe, PfE). All the offices were denied from the members, and now the liberal Brussels elite has an opposition in the Patriots (and with them, us).
Meanwhile we are punished with a €1 million per day because we defend the borders and don't let migrants into the EU.

3. Outlook and plans
We had another "national consultation".
If Bernd doesn't know what is this, it's liek an opinion research, they plan a number of questions with prepared answers, and they mail it to citizens, who can fill out the form and mail it back. The questions and answers are written in a way, that no man in his right mind would disagree with the answers that supports the Fidesz' opinion. An exaggerated example: "Do you want more money? 1. Yes. 2. No, in fact we want to pay more!" This opinion polling is used as a legitimization tool by Orbán and our govt. and it replaces plebiscites.
He says the participation shows that people want to be involved. He says this "national consultation" is always criticized, but for "us" it is important.
He lists some domestic economic measurements the govt took/takes. I won't type 'em in. No consequence for Bernd.

byd-dolphin jpg
(90.85 KB, 1200x663)

So while EU is preparing to enact tariffs on cars manufactured in China one of the Chinese companies, the BYD Auto, opens a factory on the Hungary. They'll employ ~10K people with €1800-2000 average salary which is a pretty good number hereabout. They're gonna produce electric and hybrid cars. BYD has an electric bus assembly plant in the country already.
I heard gossips about opening new factory(ies) for a while now, but this is the first actual news with concrete facts.
This has the obvious advantage of the cars being manufactured within the EU so no tariffs on them. Probably can't manufacture as much as China does at home, but it's just a first plant, perhaps they'll open more in other EU countries. Northern Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Croatia, Romania, perhaps even the Baltics would welcome them I'm sure if they see benefits from this example here.
https://index.hu/gazdasag/2024/12/29/kina-byd-szeged-kecskemet-fizetes-nyelvtanulas/

On a related note, how much more Chinese surveillance will find their way into our country?

BYD-Auto-outside-China png
(131.2 KB, 1103x858)

Hah, Wikipee.
This is their production outside China. I'm pretty sure their factory here won't produce 150K yearly.

Listening to this:
Rhetoric vs Reality: The Geopolitical World in the Age of Trump
by Michael Rossi
https://youtube.com/watch?v=g34fXJJAdiM
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=g34fXJJAdiM
Posted three weeks ago, so quite some water flowed down the Danube since, but still (there is still no meeting between Trump and Putin, so his intro is still valid).

noone-cares-what-euro... png
(61.28 KB, 982x444)

michael-rossi-and-wha... png
(81.27 KB, 577x564)

> [...] if you can really tell me who is the new leader of Europe today, I mean I'm willing to, you know, hear you out, but if your answer is Emanuel Macron, I got some bad news for you. If he is the best you can think of, Europe is in sort of dire straits these days

:^)

The screenshot he uses is obviously from twitter, but I found part of the quote in an article, about the Israel-Hamas war.
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-hamas-war-europe-eu-power-irrelevance/

Listening the Trump speech in the Congress. Mostly it's airy bullshit, but this:
> You should be hired and promoted based on skill and competence

How people anywhere in the world can't agree with this statement? This is such a nobrainer. Ofc reality doesn't work like this (see nepotism and cronyism) but the notion should be universally accepted.

ebin-banter png
(27.05 KB, 624x217)

> Governor

Ebin banter.
Can view his truths here, no need to sign up or anything:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

mattofwillyoam-total-... mp4
(43.97 MB, 1280x720 h264)

mattofwillyoam-total-... mp4
(46.19 MB, 1280x720 h264)

Quick post. I hope this will upload.
Interesting thoughts from this Infantryman: Total Democracy.
Assume along the lines of totalitarian dictatorship. I actually searched a bit and found two essays on democracies "defending" democracy by banning/silencing political opponents.
I might reflect on this sometimes.

mostly-false jpg
(97.21 KB, 1080x1063)

It is customary to create an even lamer Hungarian version of lame western products and services and whatnot.
The Fidesz-aligned Századvég Foundation founded by a minister of the first Orbán government 1998-2002  opened a fact-checker website, first in the country. Now they claim control over the facts and the correct interpretation of them.
They say they don't just fact check, but also offer a "barometer" which shows if a statemen, an article is "factual", "partially factual", or false. And the example was that the opposition said that the birth rates are low despite what the government say how their family supporting measures are successful. According to the fact-checkers this statement is partially true because the correct thing to state would have been: birth rates are low since the 70s...
So yeah. They are taking over the propaganda-control idea of the left-libs of the USA. I bet previously they published articles and did statements about their blatant fact falsifying technique.

total-democracy-by-ma... png
(266.32 KB, 877x416)

 >>/54153/
Three main thoughts he has:
1. total democracy
2. woke imperialism
3. might not makes right, but morals don't win wars

1. Basically limiting democracy in the name of democracy. Especially in the name of liberal democracy. Banning parties, restricting speech, labeling political opponents, arresting them.
Not without precedent. From the top of my head in ancient Athens it happened they declared politicians as enemy of their polity and democracy (labeled them as tyrannos) initiated ostrakismos against them. I bet there are other examples, from various republics, like Rome, tho they weren't actually democracies (they were oligarchies).

2. Western institutions exerting cultural and ideological domination over other sovereign nations, trying to influence their social policies towards what Westerners think is right.
How I see it, this is the global scope of #1, total democracy applied in foreign politics. It is essentially the same, labeling opponents as something undesirable, and punishing them, trying to silence and ostracize them.
I think the root can be found in the Liberal school of thought of international relations - but explained by Constructivism. I'd suggest Matt (and ofc, Bernd) to get Introduction To International Relations by Oxford University Press (2022 is the latest I think), or for a quick reference Michael Rossi's videos, here's playlist, look for Liberalism and Constructivism:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCFS2rj-qIVZLbIVLrUx8cXEDAn4RgGVB
He gives really good explanations.

3. Good quote: "we are morally right - therefore we shall win"
They (western - typically left-liberal - politicians, thinkers, and their main audience) live in a Lord of the Rings fantasy, and ignore that in a conflict all sides consider themselves morally right (probably even Sauron did), they disregard objective truths like firepower superiority, and shoot themselves in the foot if they lose, since that should prove them that they were wrong (since they lost).

 >>/54169/
Some stuff to add.
Quick sum of Constructivism:
How states (and other participants) behave in international relations stem from their view of themselves and the others. How they see themselves, how they see others.
So we can observe me adding this liberals see themselves as the morally right, the champions of freedom, democracy, and socio-economic welfare. They see others as dictators, oppressors, racists, imperialists, slavers, ethnic cleansers, etc. Danger in short. And no matter how awful those regimes are which liberals support all around the world they'll find a way to spin the narration to their favor.

As for liberalism in international relations. For liberals states - and indeed nations - are things of the past. For them states are surpassed and they should not exist. They say the actors of international relations are institutions, companies, and even individuals. In their mind they already live in this world, so it is natural for them, that while they live and are citizens in country X, they feel they have the right to tell the citizens of Y country what to think and how to behave. They see themselves as citizens of the world, a cosmopolitan.
I want to refer to my Theory of Power, you can find it somewhere on these pages if you look hard enough. People want more power and keep power reminder: power is the ability to make decisions. So liberals are all for freedom while they want others to share the power with them, but when they get into the position of power they turn authoritarian. They want to tell others what to think and do. Simple. There is a tyrant within every liberal.
Liberals are very militant and belligerent. Unlike Realists the classic school of international relations, who are pragmatists essentially, Liberals have an ideological and emotional bias, they feel right and they feel very strong about it. Liberals in international relations will seek out differences with others and they will clash with them about it. Realists who see interests and are willing to compromise are way, way less belligerent.
Liberals also believe in democratic peace theory. They believe democracies don't war each other. If they see the living example which refutes, dispels this flawed opinion, they will argue that one side (whom they label as aggressor) is not a real democracy. That is usually a liberal democracy.
Moreover they feel justified by democratic peace theory to launch and provoke wars against those whom they consider enemies. They want to turn them to democracies "democracies" to achieve this global peace.

 >>/54172/
I think to finish this, I want to add examples of individual actors in foreign politics.
Think of Elon Musk offering Starlink to Ukraine. He is a private person who mobilized the resources of his companies to intervene in a war of two states.
Or that tard who banned Russian IPs to download his software which was necessary to some crap, I don't recall the exact detalis anymore.
Institutions are more obvious: UN, NATO, EU, BRICS, etc.

rightfully... png
(137.21 KB, 600x1000)

Greenland held election, the great question was if they should secede from Denmark or not. Poor sods, little they know they are rightfully Turkish.
I feel this question of independence isn't really a question, since all but the smallest party is unionist. Apparently the current winner, the Demokraatit is also pro-independence, except they wish to take gradual steps in that direction, whatever that is.

Thing to know: Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark, they have their own legislative and executive branches. Not sure about judicial one. Anyway they are quite independent and basically share head of state with Denmark, the Danish king. Should we call this a personal union?

31 seats in their parliament, and here's the result:
Demokraatit - 10 seats - gradual independence, liberals
Naleraq - 8 seats - pro-independence, orange populist
Inuit Ataqatigiit - 7 seats - pro-independence, soc-dems
Siumut - 4 seats - pro-independence, soc-dems
Atassut - 2 seats - unionist, conservatives

They need 16 seats for majority, I guess if the Dems want a balance they could involve the two smallest parties. I don't think there is any real difference between any of these parties, just shades of the same. The labels I wrote above feel quite "generous".

The spice of the election was Trump and his rhetoric of taking Greenland. I'm not sure if any of these would want a union with US after they left Denmark.
But I do see them making a deal, US getting basing rights if they don't have already. If they do have one perhaps some expansion of that.

What a travesty.
Our government is initiating a "opinion expressing vote" about Ukraine's EU membership. They don't do a proper plebiscite, a referendum, but an advisory caricature of the institution which has no legal background in our Constitution, it specifically talks about only binding ones.
The Fidesz govt. made extensive use of this so called national consultations I already wrote about, where they send a list of loaded questions to the citizens who should fill the form and send it back to them. Now they take this one step further. I highly suspect they will twist the actual question Do you want Ukraine in the EU?/Do you agree to take Ukraine into EU?/Do you agree to give Ukraine EU membership? - or something similar that make you look like crazy if you want Ukraine in the EU.
We are further and further to actually have a say in our politics, and people are getting used to it.

 >>/54174/
> secede from Denmark
This sounds like a collective joke. Nobody seriously believes Greenland can survive on its own as a sovereign state. Maybe if they ejected all of Denmark's privileges while still receiving Danish subsidies.

 >>/54186/
I assume that's where the blonde prince on white horse from Washington would swoop in with the basing rights offers and whatnot.

Marine-Le-pen-1320x660 jpg
(57.7 KB, 1320x660)

So Marine Le Pen was banned from running for presidency in 2027.
Banning prez candidates is the new black. Perhaps Ukraine is Second France, but France is Second Romania is Ukraine Third Romania now?
tl;dr
She got EU funds to pay EU staff for her EU parliamentary membership. She payed staff for her French party who did little to no work related to EU. Essentially this is embezzlement.
She got 4 years of prison, 2 she'll spend in house arrest with ankle monitor on, 2 was suspended. And as a bonus she was banned from politics.
Oh this sentence is just as long so she can't run for the presidency. Oh well, coincidences.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250331-france-s-le-pen-faces-verdict-that-could-end-presidential-hopes

So.
1. What I don't understand. We have this thing that legislative members and such has immunity. And not just Hungary, Netanyahu can't be prosecuted for decades now for the same reason. What's up with this?
2. I assume this was the "court of first instance" or whatever it is called in English. They appeal against the decision.
3. This is feeding munitions to Russia. When criticized for Georgia, or the Donbas, Russia could point to Kosovo and said: USA does the same. Now when criticized for not being democratic, Moscow can just point to France or Romania and say: EU ain't really democratic either.

Netanyahu-arrives-to-... jpg
(108.24 KB, 1347x758)

Now. About the aforementioned corrupt politician.
Netanyahu arrived to Hungary for a lengthy visit, he stays till Sunday.
Weird tho. They said he's gonna arrive on Wednesday evening. And then the story is now that he arrived this morning. On the other hand the photo was done in dark. Did he arrive during the night? Before dawn?
The spicy thing is that the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant against him, and despite Hungary participates in that our govt. denied to do such thing.
https://magyarnemzet.hu/kulfold/2025/04/netanjahu-budapesti-latogatasa

Anyway what is he doing here? He won't just talk to Orbán this much we know. I assume he'll meet various representatives of the local Jews and I expect some meetings with EU officials, I assume they'll come here too. Bibi hasn't been in the EU for quite a while, over ten year or so. Relations strained, all these nonsense about the Palestinians, you know.
Our news says nothing, they make big fuss about traffic restrictions, some roads will be barred.
https://dailynewshungary.com/israeli-pm-netanyahus-four-day-visit-to-budapest-huge-traffic-restrictions-icc-arrest-warrant/

Trying to find the Orbán-Netanyahu press conference. There are quite a few long ones. Dl'd an over 3 hours long video and even that's cut.
And I'm not sure the language. Do they speak Hungarian and Hebrew? I found a 4 minute slice, Bibi talks in English.
I don't have the time now, but I'll try today.
I know from the news that we announced Hungary's exit from ICC. Does this mean Putin will visit too? Trump meets Putin on the Hungary would be a banger.

duna-parton jpg
(89.63 KB, 1214x810)

It's kinda hard to assess what Netanyahu's visit was about.
He visited the shoes at the Danube ofc, Holocaust is always part of the ritual, and I assume he met the representatives of various Jewish/Israelite communities of the Hungary, I did found any mentions in the news about this, but it feels like a given.
Articles write about a phone call, between him, Orbán, and Trump, and they note he flew straight to Washington from here, to talk about the new tariffs of Trump.
But here he gave a speech at a university, talked to Orbán, and met with our foreign minister with his delegation.
What were the topics? Beyond our exit from the International Criminal Court.
Economy and security for sure. As Bibi said: Israel needed a strong economy and strong military to stay alive.
I heard/read mentions about car industry, Israeli companies on the Hungary and the thousands of jobs they offer, and tourism.
As for security, Szijjártó, our foreign minister, said that security is a technological challenge these days. No details. So here's couple of assumptions:
I assume our govt. buys more snoop tech from Israel and will use it against Hungarian population in the name of "rising anti-semitism in Europe cause by illegal migration". After all they were the ones who acquired and used a spyware Pegasus by NSO Group to wiretap journalists, businessmen and related persons.
Just recently, a month ago perhaps, bomb threats were sent to over 250 schools in email. Long drivel about Allah and such. I'm sure they want to read emails and check logins and whatever.
And ofc we have to remember the explosives beepers were assembled on the Hungary...
Lotsa stuff to cooperate about in the future. I'm sure these things will get more ridiculous by the day.

One thing have to be noted.
This political alignment of conservative populist leaders. A French news source pointed out that both Orbán and Bibi are looking for allies, since both are fairly isolated. And for sure the "right wingers, unite" tune is popular these days. Trump rounding up the Trio. We host a CPAC conference in each year now. And within the EU too, see the formation of the Patriots group the European Parliament. And all these "hardliner" "far-right" parties are very much anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, but pro-Israel types. But I don't see how the other arm of the horseshoe, the leftists and liberals are against Israel, beyond lukewarm sympathy towards the Palestinians. Not Sholz, nor Macron would arrest Bibi if he visited their country.

The-Logic-of-US-Forei... png
(1.03 MB, 2000x1391)

Reading U.S. Foreign Policy in Perspective: Clients, enemies and empire (by David Sylvan and Stephen Majeski) these days, I already recommended it on various boards, and usually post picrel too. I really should write  up a series posts about it, but so many ways to approach this, seems like a complex task, and I'm not the most active these days.
We'll see. It could be a good to really engrave it into the brain.

clients-1940 png
(372.52 KB, 1359x856)

clients-1950 png
(364.37 KB, 1364x858)

clients-1980 png
(367.95 KB, 1317x885)

clients-2005 png
(370.88 KB, 1332x875)

 >>/54223/
The book has a companion website which features "intervention" cases, basically examples of US foreign policy actions. The book itself features others. These examples demonstrate how US acts and what policies it has.
https://www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/

So.
Since the Spanish-American War of 1898 the United States started to build her client empire. The book was published in 2008, but the list of clients they give is dated to 2005. Since then 20 years passed and I'm sure some changes happened, like the failure and withdrawal in Afghanistan, or that Hungary got on the list too.
Picrels show four points in time how this client empire grew.
Here's the list:
Africa: Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia. It's not a lot, but most countries there are clients of US clients', such as France. This is a multi-level clientèle.
The Americas and related islands: all but Cuba. I wonder how they'd rank Venezuela these days.
Europe: Austria, B&H, BeNeLux, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK. Long list of non clients, I assume that list got shorter.
Middle East and North Africa: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates. Noteworthy: Lebanon was on the list for a while back.
Caucasus, Central and South Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan. The first one is not anymore obviously.
Asia Pacific: Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Palau, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand.

2rep-1978-solenzara-d... jpg
(39.17 KB, 600x400)

 >>/54224/
So what's this client empire?
Traditionally an empire conquers and annexes new clay to grow. But not always. Even Rome had some Greek polities as clients in Hellas. Before incorporating them into the empire, but still. The British colonial empire was similar to this important to note: clients aren't colonies, they organized new states subordinated to Great Britain, instead of annexing them. Another example is the contemporary Franceafrique.
A client is not simply a tributary, who pays tax to their bully. A client's regime regime =/= leadership, regime is the system, the people running it can and do change consciously agrees to be subjected to the surveillance of the patron, who gives them advice, helps keeping the regime in power through maintenance and if necessary intervention. Important to note: clients don't have to follow the advice, tho the patron might pressure them into doing how they were told. In the British colonial empire there wasn't any choice, there were officials - I think the Brits called them "inspectors" - whom when they said something it was expected the colony to obey.
What the patron gets in return? In Realpolitik terms the patron state gets to raise power and security, the two things it concerns with. Essentially clients help the US to project her power all over the globe. If we view it in more liberal sense, then we can say the US state does what a state should: create opportunities for its citizens and the companies of the citizens all over the world, it ensures that they can conduct their business safe and free. The patron expects the client to keep the patron's interests in mind.
The patron relies on the clients, draw on their resources, be it economical, political, or militarily. Of course it is often not granted (just as listening to the advice), but they always can get an open door and mind to negotiate. The US relies on the clients to get aid to other clients, or use them as a proxy force in conflicts, or to bully enemies with embargo, or strengthening Washington's voice in questions of international politics.
I think we can describe the position of a client as closer than an ally, but farther than a colony. And this is to that particular one way surveillance the patron does, the client has nothing similar to that.

picrel
French foreign legion embarks to intervene in Zaire in 1978. The US had barely anything to do with the conflict, according to the book:
> Morocco stepped into the breach, sending a 1,500-man paratroop brigade, assisted by Egyptian pilots and mechanics, paid for by Saudi Arabia, and flown in by France, which added additional weapons and paramilitary advisers.

phillipines-bases png
(423.8 KB, 622x717)

 >>/54225/
In general three federal executive departments are busy with building this client empire:
1. State
2. Treasury
3. Defense
For certain tasks other departments might get involved, but these three runs the institutions runs the bureaucratic structure that does the surveillance, writes the reports on other states, suggests policy instruments to deploy, and does the maintenance.
In the international relations the US busy herself with three things:
1. opposing enemies;
2. taking on new clients;
3. maintain clients;
One would think that interacting with "neutral" states is way more prominent. But apparently not. Basically the fact that like half of all the countries are US clients, and a large chunk is the clients of clients, and then there are the enemies and the clients of the enemies... By now barely any "neutral" countries left, even less to worry about them.
Tho it wasn't like that in 1898 when they started out. But the book doesn't tell us how the US dealt with countries in their sovereign times, like France. Although the mindset, the "clientelist ideology" - how the book calls it - comes natural for all the diplomats, elites, and even to the general populace, it evolved gradually. I suppose it had an opportunist nature until all the policy tools which are available today formed.

picrel
One of the oldest client. Along with Cuba, but Cuba ain't a client no more.

greece-and-turkey-and... jpg
(44.28 KB, 640x478)

 >>/54232/
What are the ways the US acquires new clients? The book gives the following "contexts" country acquisitions fall within:
- post-occupation;
- switching;
- danger;
- prewar planning;
- postwar planning;
- special access.

Post-occupation
Oldest and simplest. US fights a war, occupies some land, releases them as a new client state. Cuba is the OG example (see the Platt Amendment), which was a client between 1902 and 1959. Most recent was Afghanistan, 2001-2021, except when the US troops left, the country ceased to be a client.

Switching
When an enemy state goes through such a fundamental change, without being occupied by US troops still the US might have something to do with that change, that the new regime accepts the US as its patron.
Iran, 1953-79, with the help of CIA a coup removed the PM.

Danger
US officials perceive a country to be in some kind of a danger and the US has to swoop in and help out. The British client, Greece was in the danger of a communist takeover in a civil war (1946-49), the Brits had to abandon them, so the US stepped in with economic and military aid, effectively starting in 1947. With the same swoop they acquired Turkey as well, for the same reason: they feared Turkey will get in the hands of communists - so Turkey was US client 2 years before NATO was created. Also see the Greek and Turkish Assistance Act.

Prewar planning
Pre- and postwar planning is one group in the book I took 'em apart for readability. Both decides the fate of whole regions.
The US officials see that a military conflict is coming up, so they get clients as part of the preparations, to gain strategic advantages and deny these from the enemies ahead. Pre-WWII Latin America except Argentina, 1939-40. And Canada too.

Postwar planning
War is over have to decide how the peace will look like. Plethora of Western Euro countries after WWII (1948), depleted, fatigued, destroyed. Argentine too (1946) - although it was the same agreement as the other Sudacas got.

Special access
This access is "access to Washington policy makers". These countries falling in this category has some special ties to Washington, either due to lobbying or various historical circumstances. Half a dozen countries are in this list. Ofc, Bernd might have guessed it, Israel is one of them (1948). Saudi Arabia might not be surprising (1953), but Poland might be (1998).

Oliver-Hitch... jpg
(2.21 MB, 1880x2622)

 >>/54236/
The Platt Amendment is quite interesting. Full text here:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/platt-amendment
It was named after the Chairman of the Cuban Relations Committee, senator Oliver H. Platt (from Connecticut), and was accepted first in 1901. It regulated the US-Cuban relations. The Cuban assembly also included it in their Constitution. Since their island was under US occupation did they really have a choice?
Anyway. The most interesting parts.
"III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba."
This paragraph above essentially mirrors what the book says. The authors aren't taking these ideas out of their own arses.
"VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States."
Guantanamo base sounds familiar? Having various basing rights is one major point in the US-client relations. They established this practice in the first years of client empire building.

voks-2025 jpg
(105.17 KB, 1200x675)

So they started to post the thingies for the "opinion expressing vote" mentioned here  >>/54185/
It contains a paper that says:
> Do you want Ukraine in the EU?
And to circles for yes and no to mark... and a return envelope is included.
This wole thing is just "national consultation" rebranded.
Two more papers are included that informs people about how bad would be if Ukraine joined, fake, twisted arguments, like
> oh no all the job seekers of Ukraine will take away the job from Hungarians
And the like.
Thank you Fidesz, thank you Orbán.

anastasio-somoza-garc... jpg
(516.62 KB, 1200x874)

Let's go back, have to continue this:  >>/54236/
I wrote the context in which the US acquires new clients. There are contexts for maintenance too. Maybe we could call these "cases".
One important thing to remember is, that decision makers don't look at a client, classify into one from the possible cases, and apply policy instruments, but reports coming in about the clients and with the reports suggestions what should be done. There is a palette of policy instruments available, decision makers apply these - based on the suggestions or later evaluations, etc, and life goes on. The authors of the book examined the clients and the applied policy instruments and they created these cases as abstractions.

From routine maintenance point of view, we can see economically deprived and wealthy clients, the US offers them economic, military and political "help". The authors use a different word depending how well of a client is. In case of poor countries it's "assistance", but with rich countries it's "contributions". I don't think the difference is in the amount of help, but in case of poorer countries, the US has to act more dirty and in a more direct but more covert fashion. For example:
In Ecuador, for example, the CIA had on its payroll in the early 1960s the chief of the intelligence and personnel departments of the national police, the vice president of the Senate, one of the leading political journalists, leaders of several political parties, a cabinet minister, the manager of one of the largest banks, labor leaders, and an important figure in the federation of university students.
Or:
In some cases, heads of state or government themselves were recipients of regular payments from the CIA. [...] regular stipends went to the leaders of Jordan ($750,000 per year to the King), Cyprus, Kenya, Zaire, Guyana, South Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Thailand, and Panama.

picrel:
Anastasio Somoza, dictator of Nicaragua. His rise was a direct consequence of US military training programs. In some of the Caribbean countries, where the US sent her marines to intervene, they had to organize a new armed force after the military was defeated or disbanded. Nicaragua was the same. They created the National Guard, with Somoza in the helm, and he simply took the power over (with rigged election after he forced the prez to resign).

ayatollah-khomeini jpg
(164.28 KB, 1200x675)

 >>/54268/
cont.
The larger topic in maintenance is the maintenance by intervention.
Sometimes situations arise which may cause the loss of a client, so the US have to intervene. This can range from economic crises to insurgencies. In these situations Washington has to be directly involved and take over certain functionalities of the regime from the client, and has to intervene in the affairs of the client. The book defines intervention:
It involves any policy in which an activity by a regime, essential to its survival, is taken over by an outside actor.
In this case the outside actor is the US.
In the client-patron relationship the client accepts surveillance and problem solving by the patron. This ensures a presence in the internal affairs of the client states. Intervention, ie. taking over specific activities, is a step beyond of this. It's not just about providing aid (economic, political, military), which the client uses, but do stuff instead of the regime.

There are obviously non-military and military intervention situation. First the first:
1. Emergency economic assistance.
Taking over the financing of the client. The US govt. can give money directly, but most often relying on loans, from banks or other clients, or most notably for the IMF (which was set up precisely for these things it also does economic surveillance of clients). The 1995 Mexican bailout is a good example (Mexican Debt Disclosure Act of 1995).
2. Emergency covert political assistance
Typically intervening elections due to the fear that the "wrong" party will come to power. Since this is a covert activity, usually the CIA does this and finances the propaganda of the chosen parties and paying various organizations and individuals. Example Chile, they sponsored Allende's opponents, even a party which was seen drawing votes from him too.
3. Jettisoning the president
The leader of the regime loses political support in the country, and the military has to be maintained to keep the regime in power as long as the unwanted politician can be "jettisoned" to appease the masses. Example is the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos.
4. Losing the client
Compared to the previous case, in this situation the military could not be maintained, held together, to keep the regime alive. Only one example: Iran in 1978-79 when the Islamic Revolution happened. They not just failed to create a military government, but the Iranian army literally melted, 500-1000 soldiers deserted each day.

picrel:
Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran from exile in 1979 February.

US Army Airborne... jpg
(112.74 KB, 720x467)

 >>/54270/
cont.
Here are the military intervention situations, these are the cases when the US takes over some of the military side of things to solve a crisis threatening to overturn the regime. When emergency arises there are other means to intervene besides sending the troops, this is the first case.
1. Emergency military aid and advisers
When the client has sufficient manpower sending equipment and advisers might just be the thing to do. Now these things they do as part of routine maintenance, the difference is in this case the US trains (via "advisers") whole units for imminent combat, in the size from battalions up to corps. 'member the NATO trained Ukrainian brigades, this is it. Advisors also can advise the high command on strategy and whatnot. 'member Ukraine? As for the equipment the ones given in routine context can take years to arrive, since usually they are produced after orders placed, in this case however the US ships from existing stocks - payments postponed or waived entirely. This also really sounds liek Ukraine, no? Anyway as the book says classic example is South Vietnam in the early 1960s, initiated by Kennedy. Another example is Nationalist China during WWII.

legiong png
(1.48 MB, 1092x1023)

 >>/54271/
cont.
In the next cases combat troops are involved. These aren't always own troops, can be a proxy's as well.
2. Competent clients: open-ended combat
When the client deemed competent enough, but the troop pool is getting emptied (by enemy attacks) the US is willing to get into a conflict where no clear end or even a victory in sight. They commit troops, even in growing fashion. One example the authors found: South Vietnam in 1965-68. The VC was annihilating battalions of the ARVN, so the US decided to take over the role of military in two provinces and fight the VC.
3. Competent clients: life preserver
The decision makers are optimistic the local military can be built up and become competent, so the US troop commitment has a near end. Sometimes they miscalculate ofc. South Korea 1950-51, when South Korea was barely more than a puppet for the US it's really interesting what they write about this. Nicaragua 1927-33, although events starts earlier. And Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom...
4. Incompetent clients: easy wins
The client is not and won't ever be competent, but the enemy is not formidable. When combat troops deployed, a relatively rapid and low-cost victory is expected. The US bothers with training and creating a local force, but it's more symbolic, they aren't really expected to do any lifting. Lebanon 1958. Zaire 1978, not to mix this up with the 1977 Moroccan (US client) intervention. In 1978 the US herself flew in French Legionnaires and and Belgian paratroopers. Then came the Moroccans again and some other African contingents.
5. Incompetent clients: basket cases
So the client is not and won't ever be competent, essentially no local forces, but the enemy is formidable. The victory is neither sure or rapid. Would the US public support sending their sons into a war like this? Nope, and the US does not send them. The US organizes proxy forces instead, covertly. Via the CIA. In Laos, 1962-73, a parallel war raged on, separate from the Vietnam conflict, between the US and North Vietnam. The communist was countered by a Hmong army, brought in from Thailand, and bombing, launched from Thai airfields.