Jump to content

America's Foreign Policy & Other Shit Going On Around the World thread


bolverk

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

It’s going to be great for the economy when we’re in a trade war with the entire planet

i’ve put off a bunch of house renovation stuff for a while. But this weekend I’m buying the insulation to redo my attic, I’m buying the lumber to put up a deck, and I’m buying drywall for my garage.    

I’ll probably save 25% on that decision to do it now.  and I might just buy the plug-in hybrid SUV. I’ve been looking at because that’ll go up in price too.

How in the world can half the country vote for the worst fucking human being on earth?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

FYI, Ozempic and Wegovy come from Denmark.  Can't wait for the MAGA folk to pay extra for that.

 

 

 

 


Greenlands population is like 56-57k.

That’s lower than the threshold to become a state set by Congress in the Northwest Territories in … checks notes….. the late 1700’s.

Christ.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:


Greenlands population is like 56-57k.

That’s lower than the threshold to become a state set by Congress in the Northwest Territories in … checks notes….. the late 1700’s.

Christ.

But they don't want DC to become a state, with over 10 times that population.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save the date!

Oh, and poor Tatiana, she hasn't figured out this timeline yet. 

Kremlin Confirms Readiness for Putin to Meet Trump
The president-elect had said Russia’s leader wanted to meet him to discuss the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin said it welcomed such dialogue, but a meeting could occur only after Mr. Trump took office.

The Kremlin said on Friday that Russia remained open to a meeting between President Vladimir V. Putin and President-elect Donald J. Trump, but that any concrete steps to set up such talks could be made only after Mr. Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20.

Responding to comments made on Thursday by Mr. Trump, who said that Mr. Putin wanted to meet him to discuss the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin’s spokesman reaffirmed Russia’s longstanding official position that Moscow was ready to talk.

“We need a mutual desire and political willingness to engage in a dialogue,” Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, told reporters. “We see that Mr. Trump also declares his readiness to solve issues via dialogue. We welcome that.”

Mr. Peskov added that the Kremlin’s understanding is that there is a “mutual readiness for a meeting,” but, he said, “it looks like things will start to move after Trump enters the Oval Office.”

He did not confirm that Mr. Putin had requested a meeting with Mr. Trump or that one was being set up, as Mr. Trump said on Thursday night.

A spokesman for Ukraine’s foreign ministry said Friday that Kyiv expected President Volodymyr Zelensky would also meet with Mr. Trump after the inauguration.

The spokesman, Heorhii Tykhyi, said Ukraine was preparing for talks at “the highest levels.” As for Mr. Trump’s remarks about potential talks with Russia’s leader, Mr. Tykhyi said that the president-elect had “previously mentioned plans for such a meeting, so we see nothing new in this.”

“Our stance is clear: everyone in Ukraine wants to end the war on terms that are fair to Ukraine,” he said at a news briefing. “We believe President Trump is also committed to ending the war. Therefore, the priority now is for a meeting between our presidents.”

“The most important thing for us is to collaborate with America in the pursuit of peace,” he added.

While asserting its territorial claim over five regions in Ukraine, the Kremlin has been insisting that it would prefer diplomacy over war.

Ukraine and some of its Western allies have questioned Russia’s seriousness in offering to negotiate, and said that the Kremlin’s conditions actually represent a demand for Ukrainian capitulation.

Russia has been largely isolated from the West for almost three years since it invaded Ukraine. For Mr. Putin, a meeting with the American president would represent a chance to establish relations with a friendlier American administration.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours, without saying how, and at times even said he could do so before taking office. But this week he suggested that it could take up to six months.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said that he was sympathetic with the Russian position that Ukraine should never join NATO, one of the main conditions put forward by the Kremlin to end the war.

Mr. Trump’s victory in November produced a wave of cautious optimism that the war could end soon, even if in an unstable cease-fire. But analysts have said that the process will be hard and tedious, and many in Ukraine and elsewhere fear that Mr. Trump might want to push through a deal at the expense of its capitulation.

In Russia, Giorgy Bovt, a political analyst, said that if a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin happened too early, when “the conditions for peace have not yet matured,” it could “lead to greater escalation.”

“Both warring parties are still betting on continuing military action,” Mr. Bovt wrote in a post on Telegram, a popular messaging app. “They do not consider their forces exhausted.”

Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, wrote on social media that “the higher the expectations” from the meeting “the riskier the game, most of all for Trump.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dnaguy said:


Greenlands population is like 56-57k.

That’s lower than the threshold to become a state set by Congress in the Northwest Territories in … checks notes….. the late 1700’s.

Christ.

Let us not presume a Greenland US State would be a lock to vote R every time.  Same for Canada, including the plains provinces.  With respect to those two nations, they are more European than us, which makes them generally more liberal than us (nttawwt.)  What I'm saying there are plenty of conservative Saskatchewan residents who would vote Dem.  Especially if the Democratic party were to polish their messaage.

But this is all academic.  It's a brutish negotiation ploy.  One that will harm Canadian conservatives' efforts in the coming elections.  The aforementioned conservatives in Saskatchewan might do the Dutch/Dillon handshake in defiance of the hosers down south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Let us not presume a Greenland US State would be a lock to vote R every time.  Same for Canada, including the plains provinces.  With respect to those two nations, they are more European than us, which makes them generally more liberal than us (nttawwt.)  What I'm saying there are plenty of conservative Saskatchewan residents who would vote Dem.  Especially if the Democratic party were to polish their messaage.

But this is all academic.  It's a brutish negotiation ploy.  One that will harm Canadian conservatives' efforts in the coming elections.  The aforementioned conservatives in Saskatchewan might do the Dutch/Dillon handshake in defiance of the hosers down south.

I'm not sure what say Canada has over Greenland since it's currently under Danish rule. But, since you bring up Canada, it looks like they just might get their own Trump soon, so who the fuck knows what their foreign policy will look like later this year. Maybe we'll end up fighting Canada over Greenland, and the Danes will call up all their Nordic kinfolk across Scandinavia and go bersker against both us and the Canucks.

Quote

 

Meet the Combative Populist on a Path to Become Canada’s Next Leader
Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, enjoys a commanding lead in the polls as Canadians look to the next general election.

Pierre Poilievre, the man who is the favorite to become Canada’s next leader, has painted his country as “broken” and ridden with “crime and chaos.” He has derided Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “wacko” and his ministers as “crazy,’’ “disastrous,” “incompetent and discredited.”

In Parliament, he called a leftist opposition leader and former Trudeau supporter “a fake, a phony and a fraud’’ and a “sellout.’’ Enraged, the leader stood up from his seat, walked into the aisle, and yelled, “I’m right here, bro.”

“Do it,” Mr. Poilievre shot back as the House speaker struggled to restore calm and pleaded that lawmakers respect “the rules that we have."

Mr. Poilievre, 45, the opposition Conservative Party leader, has been stretching the rules in Canada’s political discourse with a combative, attack-driven style and an anti-elite, populist message that has been described as authentic by supporters and Trumpian by critics.

So far, it’s worked.

For the past year, Mr. Poilievre and his party have enjoyed a double-digit lead in the polls over Mr. Trudeau and his Liberal Party. If the polls hold, Mr. Poilievre will emerge as the next prime minister in a general election that must be held by October but will most likely be held in the spring after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement on Monday that he would resign as party leader and prime minister once his party decides on a successor.

A career politician long known as a fierce attack-dog for his party, with an instinctive sense of the themes that resonate among voters, Mr. Poilievre has successfully pummeled the unpopular Mr. Trudeau in the past year and made him appear out of touch.

Mr. Poilievre drove the nation’s political agenda by handpicking issues — housing costs, inflation and immigration — that, according to many Canadians, Mr. Trudeau’s government had underestimated or mishandled.

But in a news conference announcing his resignation, Mr. Trudeau said that Mr. Poilievre’s “vision for this country is not the right one for Canadians," adding that the opposition leader was not offering “an ambitious, optimistic view of the future.”

Whether Mr. Poilievre can cling to his lead in the polls, or even build on it, as voters now get to know him better remains unclear. In the months ahead, the Liberal Party’s choice of a successor could yield a bump in the party’s popularity. And Mr. Poilievre, who became leader of the Conservatives in 2022, will have to campaign on his own agenda to win over mainstream voters.

“He’d be very different from any other prime minister we’ve had,” said Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta. “He’s been very combative, and he’s been like that his whole life. That’s great as an opposition leader, and even as a junior minister. But can he do that as prime minister?”

Like other populist leaders, Mr. Poilievre has tapped into the post-pandemic frustrations of voters over rising living costs, unaffordable housing and what to many seemed like a smug Trudeau government that made big decisions — like increasing immigration to historical levels or imposing a carbon tax — without much explanation or consultation.

Three years ago, Mr. Poilievre was one of the few politicians to openly support truckers who paralyzed the center of Ottawa, the capital, for weeks to protest vaccine mandates.

“He’s channeled an anti-elitism in Canada," said Lori Turnbull, a political scientist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It is populist, it is anti-institutional. That is a big part of his messaging.”

Mr. Poilievre has pushed a traditionally conservative message of personal freedom, small government, lower taxes, being tough on crime and softer on regulations on Canada’s oil industry.

But he has laced his message with railings against “globalist Davos elites," threatening to fire Canada’s central banker, embracing cryptocurrency and attacking the mainstream media, especially the public broadcaster, the C.B.C., which he has vowed to defund.

“The problem we’ve had in this country and in all of the countries that have been afflicted by this horrendous utopian wokeism is that it’s been focused on the grand, the grandiosity of the leadership of the egotistical personalities on top and not the things that are grand and great about the common people,” Mr. Poilievre said in a recent interview with Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and conservative social media star.

“And that is another reason why I think we’re doing very well," Mr. Poilievre added. “People are saying, finally, there’s someone who’s focused on letting me take back control of my own life.’’

Elon Musk, the billionaire and one of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s most influential supporters, said “great interview” about Mr. Poilievre’s appearance on Mr. Peterson’s podcast. Mr. Musk appeared to embrace Mr. Poilievre even as he continued to belittle Mr. Trudeau.

“Girl, you’re not the governor of Canada anymore, so doesn’t matter what you say," Mr. Musk posted on social media after Mr. Trudeau said there was not “a snowball’s chance in hell” that Canada would become part of the United States, as Mr. Trump has suggested.

In his personal life, Mr. Poilievre couldn’t be more different from Mr. Trudeau, who — as the son of Pierre Trudeau, who led Canada for nearly 16 years and helped define Canada’s modern identity — grew up in the prime minister’s official residence in Ottawa.

In an apparent effort to emphasize his modest origins, Mr. Poilievre has often told the story of how he was born in Calgary to a 16-year-old mother and given up for adoption. His adoptive parents were schoolteachers who separated when he was 12, after which his father came out as gay.

When he was elected Conservative Party leader in a landslide in 2022, he saluted his biological mother, his adoptive parents and his father’s longtime partner, all of whom were in the audience.

“We’re a complicated and mixed-up bunch, like most families, like our country," said Mr. Poilievre, who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Mr. Poilievre has two young children with his wife, Anaida Galindo, a former Senate aide he met in Ottawa. Ms. Poilievre was born in Venezuela but grew up with her family in Montreal. Her husband has often referred to the benefits of immigration by citing as an example Ms. Poilievre’s family, saying they came to Canada “with almost nothing’’ and “like so many immigrant families, built our country.”

Involved in conservative politics in Calgary since his early teens, Mr. Poilievre became the youngest member of Parliament when he was elected in 2004 at the age of 25. He rose quickly through the ranks, impressing older politicians with his hard work, acumen and combativeness, earning the nickname “Skippy.”

He tried to shed the image evoked by the nickname with a makeover in the summer of 2023. Abandoning navy blue suits and ties, he began appearing in public in jeans and sometimes tightfitting T-shirts. He jettisoned his squarish glasses for contacts and aviator sunglasses.

“He’s transformed his own image from this nerdy little guy with the glasses and scowl on his face all the time to this sort of Bitcoin bro who is appealing to young voters, male voters," said Ms. Turnbull, the political scientist.

Mr. Poilievre said in the interview with Mr. Peterson that he had become “tougher” since becoming Conservative leader and was ready to become prime minister.

“It’s personal for me,” he said. “I don’t come from a privileged or wealthy background. I was adopted by schoolteachers, grew up in a normal suburban neighborhood. We didn’t always have money. But I was able to get here.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TexArcher said:

The problem with this theory is that it requires Trump to understand that his economic and immigration policies will have disastrous consequences, and he definitely does not.  So, he's not running misdirection to distract from the disaster that he has no idea he's creating.

When a megalomaniac narcissist who admires dictators tells you who he is, believe him the first time.

This is just the beginning of his isolationist and expansionist rhetoric, and it's not just a smokescreen.

Well, whether he understands the stupidity of his policies or not, he understands ratings.  So he's gonna try something else for ratings.

The net effect is about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

FYI, Ozempic and Wegovy come from Denmark.  Can't wait for the MAGA folk to pay extra for that.

 

 

 

 

Does he have concepts of a plan to lower the price of eggs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

There are a few other places I would add to this map. But a good place for those who want to think/track places.

Are there any the list that you disagree with, either in terms of likelihood or impact? Do you think they're missing anything?
(link for those who'd like to look over it over)

From the high-risk/high-impact items, this one kind of jumped out (not as a surprise) but one to ponder more about:

  • Deployment of U.S. security forces to the southern border triggers a humanitarian crisis among migrants in the border region and heightens tensions with Mexico

I don't know if Mexico, specifically, is necessarily in your specialty wheelhouse, but I'd like to hear your (and others') thoughts on this one above. It kind of jumped out at me that they'd put this on a "conflict" list. I'd like to hear more about what you think they're suggesting, if more than just heated words going back and forth between two newly elected presidents trying to (re)assert themselves.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Are there any the list that you disagree with, either in terms of likelihood or impact? Do you think they're missing anything?
(link for those who'd like to look over it over)

From the high-risk/high-impact items, this one kind of jumped out (not as a surprise) but one to ponder more about:

  • Deployment of U.S. security forces to the southern border triggers a humanitarian crisis among migrants in the border region and heightens tensions with Mexico

I don't know if Mexico, specifically, is necessarily in your specialty wheelhouse, but I'd like to hear your (and others') thoughts on this one above. It kind of jumped out at me that they'd put this on a "conflict" list. I'd like to hear more about what you think they're suggesting, if more than just heated words going back and forth between two newly elected presidents trying to (re)assert themselves.  

yeah, there are a few I would add. Some directly impact the US, others are secondary with a trickle down impact. I am glad Mozambique made the list. I would color it Orange though. I am a bit surprised of places that did not make it. Kenya, Indonesia/Malaysia (Malacca Straits), Venezuela (Yellow), Central America (Which is both tied and untied to Mexico) (Yellow to Orange), the Balkans including Hungary (Orange, Catholic vs. Serb Nationalism tossing in some Soccer Thugs and their shared fascist tendencies). And I would add Brazil (yellow). Sudan (Red, but no one cares about it, yet they should). Peru (internal) and Ecuador. I would mark them Yellow. The DRC interests me. Why is it on the list? We have cared fuck all since the first UN mission ended in fiasco. Is it the Rare Earth Minerals there? if so then gotta add a few other places. Bolivia, some of the Stans, Mongolia. And up Kenya to Orange.

And there is always 1 wildcard that no one like to talk about but in my line we discuss it. Saudi Arabia. It could be a 1970's Iran scenario. Some wonder if these grandiose projects (NW City, the World Cup) are enough to pacify the Eastern Provinces. The continued importation of labor unbalances the society. Not every Saudi is a prince. Whereas it is not poverty, there is a lot of animosity towards the ruling family. Insert Rock the Casbah Lyrics here.

I sent this to a partner in the UK. I collaborate with his think tank sometimes and we agree. Him looking at it from a Brit perspective (which means linked to the US) added South Africa/Zambia. I called him out for being a colonialist (we joke like that) then he reminded me of the potential famine there. If Zambia's food production collapses again we could see Ethiopia levels of starvation impacting 4 countries. This includes the urban areas of South Africa.

I study Mexico as it impacts the region. And yeah, there could easily be a humanitarian crisis. But Mexico has its own crap to worry about.

And I am not even touching global humanitarian and health projects. These are just insurgencies/cross border shit that impacts US policy. Those are different maps and the real ones that keep me awake at night.

LMK if I missed anything.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, wood said:

So, apparently there is a signed doc from 1916 where the US officially recognized Danish interest in Greenland. Just saw on another board ...

1736423853906.jpg

And this means absolutely nothing to Dotard... kinda like the constitution. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Are there any the list that you disagree with, either in terms of likelihood or impact? Do you think they're missing anything?
(link for those who'd like to look over it over)

From the high-risk/high-impact items, this one kind of jumped out (not as a surprise) but one to ponder more about:

  • Deployment of U.S. security forces to the southern border triggers a humanitarian crisis among migrants in the border region and heightens tensions with Mexico

I don't know if Mexico, specifically, is necessarily in your specialty wheelhouse, but I'd like to hear your (and others') thoughts on this one above. It kind of jumped out at me that they'd put this on a "conflict" list. I'd like to hear more about what you think they're suggesting, if more than just heated words going back and forth between two newly elected presidents trying to (re)assert themselves.  

There should be at least a tier II dot for tensions in the Pacific and South China Sea, especially with The Philippines which is a treaty Ally.  And there should be at least a Tier III, likely tier II, for sabotage, cyber, and other grey zone attacks to ramp up against Europe and spiral. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There should be at least a tier II dot for tensions in the Pacific and South China Sea, especially with The Philippines which is a treaty Ally.  And there should be at least a Tier III, likely tier II, for sabotage, cyber, and other grey zone attacks to ramp up against Europe and spiral. 

PI has the sea marked Red. I saw that as covering the Pacific Rim.

Yeah, EU, but Russia greyed out says the same to me. Good catch though.

It was good they included the Western Sahel.

Now what about those damn pesky fenwickians?

Edited by InkaUtexas
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like there's a full-court press ramping up to destabilize EU/NATO unity as much as possible from Don Elon and Putin-backed far-right/nationalist/populist groups across Europe right now. I'm afraid we'll see something "essential" break causing a crisis in the alliance(s) over the next several months.

We're fortunate a 2/3 majority in Congress is now required to pull out of NATO, but I can certainly see it getting crippled by stopping to cooperate, getting it so mired in squabbles (e.g., gotta spend 5% on defense now) that it becomes useless, and basically undermining it to make it not credible as a defensive pact. Basically, making it clear that mutual defense no longer applies on days ending in "-day" or some other stupid shit.

Politically, Central Europe is becoming a fucking mess.

Edited by bolverk
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

This is very true. The Danes and Norwegians in Helmand did not fuck around. They had no qualms of coming out to get us when we needed it and we could pull into their perimeters at night. The brits? Most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It feels like there's a full-court press ramping up to destabilize EU/NATO unity as much as possible from Don Elon and Putin-backed far-right/nationalist/populist groups across Europe right now. I'm afraid we'll see something "essential" break causing a crisis in the alliance(s) over the next several months.

We're fortunate a 2/3 majority in Congress is now required to pull out of NATO, but I can certainly see it getting crippled by stopping to cooperate, getting it so mired in squabbles (e.g., gotta spend 5% on defense now) that it becomes useless, and basically undermining it to make it not credible as a defensive pact. Basically, making it clear that mutual defense no longer applies on days ending in "-day" or some other stupid shit.

Politically, Central Europe is becoming a fucking mess.

1- yes. But that is part of alliances. They are finicky.

2- yes.

3- Um, its central europe. fuckers cannot agree on shit. And rarely can on a damn thing. This is not new. 30 year war out front should have told ya.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wood said:

So, apparently there is a signed doc from 1916 where the US officially recognized Danish interest in Greenland. Just saw on another board ...

1736423853906.jpg

whoever drafted it on our part did a great job, because we really promised nothing about sovereignty and ownership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

i’ve put off a bunch of house renovation stuff for a while. But this weekend I’m buying the insulation to redo my attic, I’m buying the lumber to put up a deck, and I’m buying drywall for my garage.    

I’ll probably save 25% on that decision to do it now.  and I might just buy the plug-in hybrid SUV. I’ve been looking at because that’ll go up in price too.

How in the world can half the country vote for the worst fucking human being on earth?

Because "My team". Duh, stoopid lib nutjob!

That's simply the only thing that matters to some folks ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An assessment of our relations with the Middle East, especially the Gulf States.

Quote

 

In an Upended Mideast, Trump Faces a New Divergence With Old Allies
While major ruptures are not expected, Gulf states are urging a tougher stance on Israel and a softening toward Iran, positions that differ greatly from the president-elect’s first term.

When Donald J. Trump was last president of the United States, the wealthy monarchies of the Persian Gulf had a mostly harmonious relationship with his administration. As Mr. Trump prepares to return to the White House, the leaders of those Gulf countries have generally welcomed him back.

But this time around, the Gulf states and Mr. Trump appear to be diverging on several cornerstone issues, like Israel and Iran. Differences over energy policies could also be a source of friction.

It is unlikely that there will be major tensions or ruptures with U.S. allies in the Gulf. But Mr. Trump will be encountering a region that has seen drastic shifts since Israel launched its war on Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7, 2023, in which the Israeli authorities say about 1,200 people were killed and about 250 taken hostage.

The war in Gaza, in which at least 45,000 people have been killed, according to health officials in the enclave, has rippled across the region. In Lebanon, the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah has been battered by more than a year of fighting against Israel. And in Syria, rebels toppled the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Now, while Mr. Trump is filling his cabinet with Iran hawks and staunch defenders of Israel, Gulf leaders have publicly been urging a softer stance on Iran and a tougher line on Israel.

They have also been calling on the United States to stay engaged with the region.

For now, the Trump administration has appeared eager to engage with the Gulf powerhouses of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

In December, Mr. Trump’s pick as his envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, was in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi, where he attended a Bitcoin conference along with Eric Trump, the president-elect’s son. He also went to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Axios reported.

Here’s a closer look at the issues facing Mr. Trump as he navigates an evolving relationship with his traditional Gulf allies.

Engagement in the Mideast
One of the clearest calls in the Gulf for Mr. Trump to avoid an isolationist agenda came from Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services.

In an open letter to the U.S. president-elect published in November in The National, an Abu Dhabi-based newspaper, Prince Turki referred to an assassination attempt against Mr. Trump and expressed his belief that “God spared your life” in part so Mr. Trump could continue the work he had started in the Middle East during his first term. That mission was to bring “PEACE, with capital letters,” he wrote.

During his first term, Mr. Trump’s administration brokered the Abraham Accords that saw several Arab countries establishing ties with Israel.

A similar message to Prince Turki’s was delivered a few days later by Anwar Gargash, an adviser to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E. president, at a conference in Abu Dhabi.

With the Gulf surrounded by an increasingly turbulent region, Mr. Gargash said, American leadership and partnership remained essential. “We need robust leadership that balances humanitarian concerns with strategic interests,” he said.

Going Harder on Israel
On Israel, the most striking shift in messaging in the Gulf has come from the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, the crown prince. Speaking at an Arab League summit in Riyadh recently, Prince Mohammed for the first time called the Israeli military campaign in Gaza a “genocide.”

Just before the war in Gaza erupted in October 2023, Saudi Arabia appeared to be on the verge of forging diplomatic relations with Israel without fulfilling its longstanding precondition for doing so — the establishment of a Palestinian state. Such a deal would have reshaped the Middle East.

Under one plan, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for stronger defense ties with the United States and American support for a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia.

But recent statements by Prince Mohammed suggest that any deals are a long way off.

In addition to his statement referring to genocide in Gaza, he has also made it clear that Saudi Arabia will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel until a Palestinian state is created. That is still a distant prospect given strong opposition to such a state within the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

“I think that the crown prince wanted to make his position clear and beyond any shadow of a doubt,” said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi businessman who is close to the kingdom’s ruling family.

The United Arab Emirates — a signatory to the Abraham Accords — has also signaled a hardened stance toward Israel.

The U.A.E. foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, told his Israeli counterpart last week that the Emirates would “spare no effort supporting Palestinians.”

Despite Saudi Arabia’s public stance on the status of a normalization deal, U.S. diplomats have indicated that the kingdom may be privately open to advancing one under a second Trump presidency — contingent upon a permanent cease-fire in Gaza and a tangible commitment by Israel toward a path to Palestinian statehood.

“All of that is ready to go if the opportunity presents itself with a cease-fire in Gaza as well as understandings on a pathway forward for the Palestinians,” the departing U.S. secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, said on Wednesday. “So, there’s tremendous opportunity there.”

Détente With Iran?
During Mr. Trump’s first term, both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates championed his administration’s hawkish stance on Iran, seeing Tehran as a dangerous rival in the region.

They cheered when Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from a nuclear deal with Iran and hailed his decision to authorize the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, the general who directed Iran’s militias and proxy forces around the Middle East, in January 2020.

But the dynamics of the region have changed since Mr. Trump’s first term.

Saudi Arabia and Iran reached an accord in March 2023 that reduced tensions in the Persian Gulf and opened the door to high-level diplomatic contacts.

Bahrain, after years of tension with Iran, has made overtures to the Iranian government, with King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa saying there was “no reason to delay” the resumption of diplomatic relations. The tiny island kingdom also condemned Israel’s targeting of Iran last October, when a shadow war between the two countries broke out into the open with tit-for-tat attacks.

For Saudi Arabia, the goal is clear: to create a stable regional environment conducive to Prince Mohammed’s dream of diversifying the oil-dependent Saudi economy. For Iran, decades of economic and political isolation, compounded by rising domestic unrest, have made reconciliation with Riyadh a necessity.

There are also indications that Iran might be open to negotiating with Mr. Trump. Many former officials, pundits and newspaper editorials in Iran have openly called for the government to engage with Mr. Trump.

So far, Mr. Trump, too, appears open at least in charting a different course from the “maximum pressure” campaign of his first term. In November, Elon Musk, a close adviser to Mr. Trump, met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Iranian officials said.

“We have to make a deal because the consequences are impossible,” Mr. Trump said in September, referring to the threat of Iran’s pursuing nuclear weapons.

Possible Frictions Over Oil
While the Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — appear open to Mr. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, they could find themselves at odds with his economic policies.

A central promise of his campaign was to bolster U.S. oil and gas production, a move that could hurt Gulf economies.

If the United States increases oil production, as Mr. Trump has pledged, producers in the Gulf would have less scope to raise output without prompting a price drop.

“Increased U.S. oil exploration and production will lower prices and jeopardize the oil-driven economies of the Gulf,” Bader al-Saif, an associate fellow at the London-based research institute Chatham House, said in a recent report.

Mr. Trump is also expected to accelerate liquefied natural gas projects, reversing President Biden’s freeze on permits and increasing U.S. exports, particularly to Europe.

Qatar, one of the largest producers of the gas alongside the United States, would most likely be most affected, but it has so far played down its concerns.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weaponizing Musk in Europe: cold hard cash, meet-ups with neo-nazis & nationalists, and threats of tariffs.

 

Quote

 

A New Age of American Interference in Europe
Elon Musk and MAGA are already disrupting the status quo, and Europe seems ill-prepared.

For the last decade or more, Europe’s governments have been trying to resist covert influence operations from adversaries like Russia and China.

Now they have a very different challenge: Fending off overt efforts by Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement to seize territory, oust elected leaders and empower far-right causes and parties.

Even before he retakes office, Mr. Trump is making threats — perhaps serious, perhaps not — to acquire the territory of NATO allies like Canada and Denmark. And Mr. Musk, the president-elect’s biggest financial supporter, is using his social media platform X to bring the far-right Alternative for Germany party into the mainstream and smear the leaders of Britain’s center-left Labour Party.

It is not clear if Europe’s political immune system has the antibodies to defend against these new incursions.

This is not the first time a Trump ally has attempted to build a bridge with the European far right. In 2018 and 2019, the Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon held meetings with far-right politicians across Europe. But the political landscape now is very different. The governments of Germany and France have collapsed; far-right parties are on the rise in those countries, and are already in power in several others across the continent.

A senior official from the first Trump administration, who is in line for an even more senior role in the second, was blunt in his assessment: Europe, he said, has no idea what is coming its way.

‘A very rich person expressing his opinions’
Mr. Musk spent a $250 million slice of his $400 billion fortune to help Donald Trump get re-elected. He arguably had just as much influence on U.S. politics through his own notoriety and ownership of X, the social media network formerly known as Twitter.

He aggressively campaigned against Kamala Harris (in one case sharing a fake video of her describing herself as a “diversity hire” who does not “know the first thing about running the country”) and interviewed Trump live on the platform. He is now deploying a similar playbook in Europe.

In Britain, Mr. Musk revived a decade-old “grooming gangs” scandal that unfolded while Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose center-left Labour Party is in power, was head of public prosecutions.

Fanning the flames that were kindled by right-wing media outlets, Mr. Musk has called Mr. Starmer “utterly despicable” and says he should be “in prison.” Last week he asked his 212 million followers to vote on whether “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.”

According to British media reports, Mr. Musk is also considering a $100 million donation to Britain’s far-right Reform Party, which would be the country’s largest political donation ever. The party’s leader, Nigel Farage, one of the chief campaigners for Brexit, has met Trump several times, most recently at Mar-a-Lago last month.

“MAGA hates Starmer,” the former Trump administration official told The Times. He spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer his candid views while he is being considered for a role in the second Trump administration.

“MAGA loves Meloni,” he added, referring to Italy’s right-wing prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, “as long as she meets her deportation targets.”

Mr. Musk’s SpaceX is also in talks with Ms. Meloni’s government to provide secure military communications through its Starlink satellite network. At a news conference last week, she described Mr. Musk as a “very rich person who is expressing his opinions.”

‘Musk is normalizing us’
In Germany, which is holding snap federal elections next month, Mr. Musk is encouraging voters to vote for the far-right AfD, offering it the legitimacy that has long been denied to a party under surveillance by Germany’s domestic intelligence service for its links to neo-Nazis.

In an opinion piece for a major German newspaper published Dec. 28, he called the AfD the last “spark of hope” for Germany. The country, he said, is “teetering on the brink of economic and cultural collapse.”

On Thursday he live-streamed a 75-minute conversation with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor, on X, giving her the same platform he gave Trump five months earlier.

Since Mr. Musk first endorsed the AfD in December, Ms. Weidel’s posts on X have routinely gone viral, in part because he reposts them, along with numerous neo-Nazi accounts that have been reinstated and amplified. Researchers watching the online scene say far-right German influencers now post on X in English to get Mr. Musk’s attention.

Germans won’t vote for the AfD just because an American billionaire asks them to. But social media is a tool that can shift public opinion, taking ideas that were once considered extreme and inserting them into the mainstream over time.

What has kept the AfD out of power despite becoming the second most popular party in the country is a national taboo against working with the far right. The memory of Hitler, who formed a coalition with centrist conservatives, has so far kept this firewall in place.

“The firewall between the AfD and the White House is officially gone and that makes the German firewall look silly,” the AfD’s co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, told me. “Musk is normalizing us.”

Overt vs. Covert
U.S. influence campaigns in other countries are not new. During the Cold War America lent its support to friendly nations and parties and intervened — sometimes aggressively — in countries seen to be ideological adversaries.

But now the MAGA movement seems to be intentionally sowing discord within U.S. allies. That’s disorienting for Europeans who grew up imbibing American lessons about democracy after World War II.

“I can’t remember a comparable case of interference in the election campaign of a friendly country in the history of the western democracies,” said Friedrich Merz, the leader and chancellor candidate of the center-right Christian Democrats. His party is leading in the polls but will need a coalition partner to form a government.

The United States remains the main guarantor of European security as the war in Ukraine has shown. It is also Europe’s biggest export market, making the prospect of tariffs a powerful threat for European economies. And Europe has no technology companies on par with those coming out of Silicon Valley, including Mr. Musk’s X platform and his Space X satellite company.

Europe’s dependency on Russian energy long hampered its response to the Kremlin’s meddling. But the dependency is much greater in the case of the United States.

Add to that the fact that the American interference is not covert, it is happening in broad daylight, which makes fighting back that much harder.

Exploiting existing grievances
Influence campaigns work best when they tap into existing grievances. As in the United States, Europe’s trust in institutions fell in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic. Voters have become more hostile toward immigration and more worried about the cost of living and the economy. There is a growing sense that centrist leaders on left and right have failed them on these issues.

Millions of people in Europe are angry with the establishment, said Matthew Goodwin, a conservative author and commentator. “It’s not being orchestrated by Trump or Musk.”

“Musk has not created the AfD,” Mr. Goodwin added. “It helps the AfD that he is getting them attention but the underlying driver of this are policy choices that were made over the past decade.”

Mr. Musk’s provocations in Europe may be designed for maximum chaos rather than electoral success. In Britain, he trashed Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform Party, after Mr. Farage declined to endorse Mr. Musk’s demand that a far-right agitator be released from prison.

“Both the Kremlin and the forces around the libertarian-authoritarian camp around Musk want to sow chaos in Europe and get rid of the liberal democratic elites,” Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told the German outlet Die Zeit. “We have to arm ourselves against that. But the biggest danger for our democracies comes not from the outside but the inside. Those fighting election campaigns should focus on the problems that concern voters.”

Similar levels of infighting and chaos also exist within the broader MAGA movement. Back in United States, there are signs that those in Mr. Trump’s hard line anti-immigration inner circle are tiring of Mr. Musk, especially after a spat about whether the country should expand work visas for highly skilled immigrants. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on Sunday, Mr. Bannon called Mr. Musk “truly evil” and vowed to “take this guy down.”

Whatever the direct impact of American interference on Europe’s political map in coming years, Trump is determined to enforce his priorities in Europe whoever is in government.

“At the end of the day, Trump is going to be so much more aggressive with Europe in terms of advocating uncompromisingly for the U.S. position that it doesn’t actually matter who’s in charge,” the former Trump official said. “They key thing is America First. Everything else is a distraction. Trump is going to use American strength to get his way.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2025 at 12:18 PM, Satchel said:

Does he have concepts of a plan to lower the price of eggs?

Has anyone asked how many chickens there are in Greenland? I mean maybe Trump is a genius, and we just don't know it? (Highly unlikely, I know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2025 at 3:09 PM, InkaUtexas said:

This is very true. The Danes and Norwegians in Helmand did not fuck around. They had no qualms of coming out to get us when we needed it and we could pull into their perimeters at night. The brits? Most of the time.

For those that didn't live it,

 

 

Edited by SimonBolivar
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin and Blinken (sounds like reindeer names) wrote this NY Times editorial about why Putin has failed and why it is important that we stay the course to keep him from achieving his goals in Ukraine. The most surprising statement is that Russia has suffered 700,000 casualties to this point and 1,500 a day! I have no idea if this is true, of course, but what is surprising is that this is from an official government representative, and it is much higher than we have previously claimed. I hope it is true and it forces Putin to stand too close to a window. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/opinion/us-ukraine-defense-austin-blinken-russia.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if many watched Rubio's confirmation. Two caught my attention. It was an interesting back and forth with Booker. Then Kaine.

Booker- Focus should be on Africa. Humanitarian, Peacekeeping (I hate that fucking term), and opening up the vast market for US companies. The third is to counter China and their control on growth via monopoly and REM.

Kaine- Latin America. Rubio and Kaine both agree we see the hemisphere only in terms of problems. We do not coordinate or collaborate with coutnries who are not fucked up. Paraguay and Ecuador (LMAO) were named. Paraguay is very interesting, strategic and overlooked since the days of the Jesuits.

On another note. Denmark said Greenland's future is up to the Greenlanders (?). I see protectorate in the near future. Danes cannot or do not want to deal with it anymore.

 

Quote

 

Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has told Donald Trump that it is up to Greenland to decide its own future.

The US president-elect sparked turmoil in Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland's capital, last week when he signalled that the US wanted to acquire the huge arctic island, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

In a 45-minute phone call on Wednesday, Frederiksen told Trump that Denmark was prepared to increase its responsibility for security in the Arctic.

She also reiterated the statements of the Greenland PM, Mute Egede, who recently said that Greenland was not for sale.

Trump did not react to the call publicly. However, he reposted on his TruthSocial account a 2019 poll that indicated 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w8e051j0do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Not sure if many watched Rubio's confirmation. Two caught my attention. It was an interesting back and forth with Booker. Then Kaine.

Booker- Focus should be on Africa. Humanitarian, Peacekeeping (I hate that fucking term), and opening up the vast market for US companies. The third is to counter China and their control on growth via monopoly and REM.

Kaine- Latin America. Rubio and Kaine both agree we see the hemisphere only in terms of problems. We do not coordinate or collaborate with coutnries who are not fucked up. Paraguay and Ecuador (LMAO) were named. Paraguay is very interesting, strategic and overlooked since the days of the Jesuits.

On another note. Denmark said Greenland's future is up to the Greenlanders (?). I see protectorate in the near future. Danes cannot or do not want to deal with it anymore.

Greenland wants to hit that transfer portal and come to America is what I'm hearing?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, something like 160 Canadian divisions are poised at the US border. For weeks, constant violations of this frontier have taken place, affecting us from Maine down to Florida.

Canadian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of of our homeland.

Last night, Canadian patrols again penetrated into American territory and could only be driven back after prolonged firing. This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to take steps against this plot devised by the Jewish warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevist center in Moscow.

American people! At this moment a march is taking place that, as regards extent, compares with the greatest the world hitherto has seen. American divisions commanded by the conqueror of Panama, in cooperation with the heroes who liberated Greenland are protecting American soil. We are meeting bombs with bombs!

image.jpeg.d01c74c7ef2544188a2e6fb799718009.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...