Perfect illustration that U.S. tech leaders have dangerously lost the plot. Not only does Karp not seem to understand the first thing about geopolitics, he doesn't even understand what made the U.S. successful. He claims that: - The only way for the U.S. to be safe is for their adversaries to "wake up scared and go to bed scared" - The U.S. should do collective punishment, threatening not just adversaries but their "friends, cousins, mistresses, and whoever was involved." - The U.S. "cannot have parity" with adversaries because "our adversaries do not have our moral compunction. If it's even, they will take advantage of our niceness, kindness." - International institutions such as the UN are "discriminatory against anything good" In short, this is imperial hubris at its most deluded and hypocritical. Karp simultaneously claims American moral superiority while advocating deeply immoral tactics like collective punishment, making everyone else live in fear and rejecting any checks on its power. It's a worldview that mistakes bullying for leadership and domination for security. And which, by the way, betrays America's own historical lessons as a former British colony... And, most importantly: it's dead wrong - the world absolutely doesn't work this way. Rule by fear has a long and very well documented history of failure. Empires that rely on fear and domination always sow the seeds of their own demise because fear always generates resistance and resentment. This is by the way exactly what's happening now, as explained by none other than Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard", in which he wrote that the most dangerous scenario for the U.S. would be an "alliance of the aggrieved": "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." That's what rule through fear and intimidation gets you: it unlocks the "most dangerous scenario" for the U.S. because, guess what, turns out people don't particularly enjoy being bullied and threatened... They tend to band together against the bully, regardless of their differences. What made America truly successful wasn't its ability to frighten others - it was its ability (largely lost today) to build. The Marshall Plan, international institutions, cultural exchange, industrial might, technological innovation - these were the real sources of American power. How did the U.S. "win" the cold war? Let's turn to another actually smart American statesman, George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. Key to his strategy was, in his words, proving that the U.S. was "coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power". This meant creating a society and an international order that inspired admiration rather than fear, one that nations would be inspired by rather than be coerced into. This is precisely why Gorbachev, for better or worse, ultimately pushed for reform - he recognized the clear success of the American economic and technological model compared to Soviet stagnation. He was convinced by U.S. achievements, not intimidated by threats. Most tellingly, this tech CEO seems completely disconnected from today's tech reality. His claim that the U.S. is "the only one with a real tech scene" is peak delusion - China has now overtaken the U.S. in innovation and scientific discoveries according to almost all credible rankings. All in all Karp's "make them afraid" rhetoric reveals a profound insecurity - a tacit admission that America can no longer compete on the basis of positive achievements. When he dismisses international institutions and advocates for rule by fear, he's essentially admitting that America can no longer lead by example or build constructive alternatives. All that's left is the threat of force. It also reveals something about the current state of American tech leadership. When tech CEOs start sounding like Cold War hawks, advocating for global domination through fear rather than innovation through building, it suggests they've run out of ideas. They're no longer confident in their ability to compete on the merit of their products and solutions. To conclude, Karp's worldview isn't just dead wrong - it represents everything that's gone awry with American leadership: the abandonment of building for bullying, of influence for intimidation, of power for control, the triumph of worst instincts over thoughtful judgment. When America elevates leaders like Karp who preach fear over building, we're not witnessing the restoration of American greatness as many of the comments below claim - we're watching its erosion in real time. A nation that can only threaten rather than inspire has already lost its claim to leadership.