If I may be permitted a rather broad generalization: with all of the speculation going on about what Trump may or may not be up to along with what he may or may not mean by what he says, I think that this is the kind of dynamic that one would expect when a new President takes office. The fact that this country has, for all intents and purposes, not had a competent, lucid and fully functional CIC for the last four years, but only a senile, corrupt, unaware and incompetent buffoon makes all of this seem even more robust and consequential. The Biden administration will forever be identified as the most corrupt, dangerous and incompetent one in the history of this country and the antidote will not provide a smooth or problem free remedy. I am content to see how all of this sorts out over the next few years and remain satisfied that DJT is President and JRB has been banished to the ash heap of history.
One thing I have been wondering about which is possibly related:
Russia has been very cautious about any change happening in regards to Ukraine with Trumps election. Putin himself said that since he became President in 2000 he hasn't seen any change in American foreign policy from one president to the next. Then last week he comes out and says that he believes Trump when he says that there wouldn't had been the war in Ukraine if he had been President. Putin even mentioned that the election was stolen from Trump. To me that is a big change in their rhetoric that must been the result of something happening behind the scenes. This also works with Mark's belief that what Trump says to the press is for domestic consumption and doesn't necessarily reflect what he really thinks or is doing behind the scene.
As we know, or should know, NATO was originally a post-WWII British creation. Britain even came out and said that the purpose of NATO with respect to Europe was to "keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down." That has been NATO's script for lo these many years.
But then there was Charles De Gaulle, president of France from 1958-1968 until he was forced to resign due to demonstrations sponsored by MI6 and the CIA in one of the first "color revolutions." De Gaulle saw the EU as extending "from Lisbon to the Urals." Alas, his vision was crushed by the viciousness of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, after he became president, Putin asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Clinton said he would ask his "advisers" and came back saying "No."
A quarter of a century has now passed.
The Empire has been defeated due to the failed NATO proxy war in Ukraine war and the unmasking of terrorist Israel. NATO is crumbling before our eyes, despite Starmer's 100-year deal with Zelensky to sponsor unending terrorism against Russia.
If Trump and his team have been listening to the likes of Col. Douglas Macgregor, they know all this.
Plus we now see Europe revolting--in Hungary, Slovakia, and now Germany and possibly even Britain. Musk; i.e., Trump is instigating it.
Is Trump finally ready to lower the boom on NATO, which he can do simply by reaching a reasonable accomodation with Putin?
China cannot and does not want to take the place of the US worldwide. There is much being written by Chinese academics regarding morality and governance as the basis to move forward.
What Russia wants/needs is not hard to understand, so doing things in that direction makes total sense.
This all circles back to domestic: there needs to be a sense of safety and security in order for normal and republican politics to happen. Digital tech has blown the old model apart, so the issues around safety have to be addressed before anything else. One can think of the US as bringing the money to the table, but not imposing all the democracies talk from the past. Everyone seeks their own interests and makes a “deal.”
A big thing in the background in many countries is the role that spirituality/religion is playing. We don’t think about it much here, but it’s significant everywhere else, and is the basis of questions concerning morality and governance. The Chinese are more in-tuned to this than the West.
Trump is first and foremost a businessman, and consequently his approach to problem solving is to make deals. And his deals almost always result in win-win situations in which both parties prosper. As an example, Trump's interest in Greenland will likely result in a deal that ultimately benefits the Inuits of Greenland, Denmark, and the US (all if which will become evident after the smoke clears). This deal is happening because Denmark allowed an underperforming asset to languish, in which not even the Danes benefitted. Corporate takeovers often occur when current management becomes stale, hidebound, and lazy. Ditto for Russia. If they work with Trump, he will help reopen the EU market to Russian energy supplies; which is an economic win for the EU countries and actually delivers the European security architecture that Russia covets. Trump is thinking outside the box. He is the true game changer.
Recall that the French failed at building the canal initially and then Teddy Roosevelt and the US stepped in to get the job done. In the process, they upgraded the standard of living in Panama to a level better than its neighbors, including mosquito mitigation and elimination of malaria as a local scourge. Overall, it was a big win for all parties including international shipping. China's Belt & Road initiative is proving quite successful. We would be wise to do likewise in our hemisphere.
If I may be permitted a rather broad generalization: with all of the speculation going on about what Trump may or may not be up to along with what he may or may not mean by what he says, I think that this is the kind of dynamic that one would expect when a new President takes office. The fact that this country has, for all intents and purposes, not had a competent, lucid and fully functional CIC for the last four years, but only a senile, corrupt, unaware and incompetent buffoon makes all of this seem even more robust and consequential. The Biden administration will forever be identified as the most corrupt, dangerous and incompetent one in the history of this country and the antidote will not provide a smooth or problem free remedy. I am content to see how all of this sorts out over the next few years and remain satisfied that DJT is President and JRB has been banished to the ash heap of history.
The Syria withdrawal certainly puts the Kurdish situation in an unusual posture.
A functional Syria needs it’s agricultural and oil assets but happens to the Kurds?
Check out the latest German polling
CDU 29%
AfD 23%
SPD 15%
Green 13%
It's going to hard for CDU to resist a coalition with AfD, especially after the vote yesterday. Looks like major tectonic shift.
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1884553857700671554
One thing I have been wondering about which is possibly related:
Russia has been very cautious about any change happening in regards to Ukraine with Trumps election. Putin himself said that since he became President in 2000 he hasn't seen any change in American foreign policy from one president to the next. Then last week he comes out and says that he believes Trump when he says that there wouldn't had been the war in Ukraine if he had been President. Putin even mentioned that the election was stolen from Trump. To me that is a big change in their rhetoric that must been the result of something happening behind the scenes. This also works with Mark's belief that what Trump says to the press is for domestic consumption and doesn't necessarily reflect what he really thinks or is doing behind the scene.
The death of NATO?
As we know, or should know, NATO was originally a post-WWII British creation. Britain even came out and said that the purpose of NATO with respect to Europe was to "keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down." That has been NATO's script for lo these many years.
But then there was Charles De Gaulle, president of France from 1958-1968 until he was forced to resign due to demonstrations sponsored by MI6 and the CIA in one of the first "color revolutions." De Gaulle saw the EU as extending "from Lisbon to the Urals." Alas, his vision was crushed by the viciousness of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, after he became president, Putin asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Clinton said he would ask his "advisers" and came back saying "No."
A quarter of a century has now passed.
The Empire has been defeated due to the failed NATO proxy war in Ukraine war and the unmasking of terrorist Israel. NATO is crumbling before our eyes, despite Starmer's 100-year deal with Zelensky to sponsor unending terrorism against Russia.
If Trump and his team have been listening to the likes of Col. Douglas Macgregor, they know all this.
Plus we now see Europe revolting--in Hungary, Slovakia, and now Germany and possibly even Britain. Musk; i.e., Trump is instigating it.
Is Trump finally ready to lower the boom on NATO, which he can do simply by reaching a reasonable accomodation with Putin?
We can hope, can't we?
I think Trump knows, regardless of what Mac says.
Yes. The re-organization of the West is underway.
China cannot and does not want to take the place of the US worldwide. There is much being written by Chinese academics regarding morality and governance as the basis to move forward.
What Russia wants/needs is not hard to understand, so doing things in that direction makes total sense.
This all circles back to domestic: there needs to be a sense of safety and security in order for normal and republican politics to happen. Digital tech has blown the old model apart, so the issues around safety have to be addressed before anything else. One can think of the US as bringing the money to the table, but not imposing all the democracies talk from the past. Everyone seeks their own interests and makes a “deal.”
A big thing in the background in many countries is the role that spirituality/religion is playing. We don’t think about it much here, but it’s significant everywhere else, and is the basis of questions concerning morality and governance. The Chinese are more in-tuned to this than the West.
Trump is first and foremost a businessman, and consequently his approach to problem solving is to make deals. And his deals almost always result in win-win situations in which both parties prosper. As an example, Trump's interest in Greenland will likely result in a deal that ultimately benefits the Inuits of Greenland, Denmark, and the US (all if which will become evident after the smoke clears). This deal is happening because Denmark allowed an underperforming asset to languish, in which not even the Danes benefitted. Corporate takeovers often occur when current management becomes stale, hidebound, and lazy. Ditto for Russia. If they work with Trump, he will help reopen the EU market to Russian energy supplies; which is an economic win for the EU countries and actually delivers the European security architecture that Russia covets. Trump is thinking outside the box. He is the true game changer.
"This deal is happening because Denmark allowed an underperforming asset to languish,"
True, but that makes it seem a bit reminiscent of the US and the Panama Canal.
Recall that the French failed at building the canal initially and then Teddy Roosevelt and the US stepped in to get the job done. In the process, they upgraded the standard of living in Panama to a level better than its neighbors, including mosquito mitigation and elimination of malaria as a local scourge. Overall, it was a big win for all parties including international shipping. China's Belt & Road initiative is proving quite successful. We would be wise to do likewise in our hemisphere.