Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Steve Browning]

He won't fear impeachment. He was bang to rights last time, but his majority was able to clear him.

[Leonard Smalls]

Looks like UK Subs bassman Alvin Gibbs (and much of the rest of the band!) fell foul of the must-not-criticise ruling - they weren't allowed in and Charlie had to play with a scratch band! From FB:

Some of you might have seen posts on UK Subs’ websites, which provide photos and video of a random line-up playing with Charlie at a Los Angeles Punk festival at the weekend. You might therefore be wondering ‘how come?’ Well, the truth is that Stefan, Marc and I were all denied entry into the USA whilst somehow – perhaps he used a Jedi mind trick, or, more likely, caught an immigration officer at the end of their shift eager to get home – Charlie managed to get in. Having already been on a plane for 11 hours, upon my partner Roz and I arriving at the immigration booth we were beckoned to, we were told that Roz could go through, but something had flagged up which required my being taken away for questioning. There were two issues: 1) they said I didn’t have the right visa for entry and 2) there was another issue, which they wouldn’t disclose, both of which prevented me from being allowed into America – I’m now wondering if my regular and less than flattering public pronouncements regarding their president and his administration were a factor; or maybe that’s just me succumbing to paranoia. I was then taken by two police officers to another part of LAX and escorted to a very cold holding pen where I discovered Stefan and Marc in situ along with some Columbian, Chinese and Mexican detainees. My luggage, phone and passport were all taken from me, and at 4am (I’d arrived in LA at 7pm) I took part in a second interview conducted by a very sympathetic female immigration officer, who even kindly went out into the airport to see if she could find Roz to update her on my situation and pass on information regarding the enforced flight I was to take back from whence I came. She did both, and I’m most indebted to Officer Jones for her assistance and decency. Luckily, Roz was able to change her flight to the same one that I was escorted onto by two police officers at 8pm the next day – at that point I’d been in the holding room for 25 hours without sleep and with only a pot noodle and a couple of cups of tea to sustain me. Roz had been obliged to spend 25 hours in the airport waiting for me to emerge. Another eleven hour flight was then endured, the worst bit being I was denied any alcohol because its United Airlines’ policy that any passenger being escorted onto a flight in that manner cannot be served as much as a single glass of wine: Stefan and Marc, on the other hand, who travelled back via British Airways, were allowed to make the most of the free booze on their flight to help offset the stress of our shared experience. I’m really sad that the true UK Subs were unable to provide the performance and the diverse set we’d prepared, all of which the audience deserved; although kudos and congrats are in order for the three musicians who stepped in last minute to play with Charlie. The photo I’ve provided is of Roz and me sitting outside a bar, sharing a few wines together, after finally getting back to our homestead in SW France – despite being happy to be home, my scowling face reflect the after effects of 2 days without sleep. So, in conclusion, although not being something I’d want to replicate, it was actually an educational experience and, honestly, I’m kind of proud of myself for being thrown out of America at the age of 67, now knowing that my relationships with that country is over for the foreseeable future. And maybe, just maybe, that’s why the chorus of track 3, side 1, of the first Clash album keeps running around my head. A

[TimR]

15 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

He won't fear impeachment. He was bang to rights last time, but his majority was able to clear him.

 

A large majority of his Presidential Orders are being frustrated in the courts as being illegal. 

 

While Karoline is proclaiming he is getting things done, the truth is somewhat different. 

 

Once he starts overruling and ignoring the judges things alter somewhat.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-court-order-immigration-constitutional-crisis

 

Edited Thursday at 09:27 by TimR

[Burns-bass]

1 hour ago, tegs07 said:

Replace NATO expansion with EU and I think we can understand Putin a little better. Russian spheres of influence, internal markets, sources of trade and raw materials are moving towards the west. The summer uprising in Ukraine and its pivot towards EU membership would never have been tolerated by Putin.

 

Military threat is just a smokescreen. Ukraine was never a military threat to Russia. It is however a huge market. It provides nuclear energy, gas and oil transit infrastructure, rare earths and a cheap supply of food. Ukraine is also symbolic for Putin and a warning for other former USSR countries. Desert us and we will destroy you.

 

As for war. We are at war with Russia. It’s a hybrid war that involves economic dominance, Cyber attacks, state sponsored terror, disinformation, propaganda, assassinations, daily acts of provocation. 

 

The move away from fossil fuels is another catalyst. This is the main driver for the Russian economy and the source of it’s leaders personal wealth. Do you honestly think that this chimes with the EU green agenda and conditions for membership?

 

War is not just confined to trenches. If you continue to wait for Russian troops in westminster then the war will have been lost long ago.

 

Edit: The EU either needs to abandon its push into the Baltics and other parts of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine,  or face continued Russian aggression. Call this aggression whatever you like if war isn’t comfortable. IMO disinformation, election interference, economic pressure through artificial manipulation of the energy sector (war in soft targets does this very nicely) are all far more effective than missiles. 

 

No, the NATO expansion is the real issue, supported by the EU.

 

Ukraines neutrality (or perceived neutrality) is the aim. Russia would be a pariah state if it had occupied and annexed the whole of Ukraine. Far easier to have toppled Zelensky and installed a puppet regime favourable to Russia (something the US did by proxy in toppling the elected Ukrainian government in 2014).

 

This is much more complex than Ukraine as a benign and neutral country that was quietly going about its life (as plucky little Belgium was in 2014).

 

The media needs to shift from the idea of Putin as a Hitlerian dictator hell bent on invading Europe. 
 

Your analysis of the reasons for invasion are much more likely to be the reason for it all.

 

The attempt to simplify this into a binary good v bad narrative completely denies the complexity of the situation.

[Al Krow]

11 hours ago, Misdee said:

As I pointed out a while ago on another thread, much to other people's chagrin, once Russia had committed itself to a boots-on-the-ground conventional war in the Ukraine there was only ever going to be one outcome. It's just a question of when and how Russia achieved it's aims, and how costly the attrition is upon it's military.

 

Russia were never going to tolerate Ukraine becoming part of NATO any more than the USA would accept a  Russian military presence in Canada or Mexico. For all the eccentricity of the Trump administration, their approach has been productive. They aren't prepared to throw good money after bad in pursuit of a lost cause. 

 

For all their evangelical proselytizing about protecting freedom, in private other countries know that too.Including Britain. They're probably a bit relieved, although they could never publicly admit it.

 

Let me put it another way, is Russia annexing territory in Ukraine really that much worse than North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam as victors in 1975? It's not a direct parallel, but it was always going to happen after America withdrew following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Nixon and the USA were pariahs at the time for ordering unrestricted bombing of the North to pressurize them into agreeing terms with the USA, but history has vindicated his approach. He succeeded in bringing American involvement to an end when it had previously seemed an intractable problem.  I cannot help but think that Trump might be similarly exonerated in his radical approach to the war in Ukraine.

 

Russia annexing bits of Ukraine is akin to Vietnam?

 

How about Trump looking to annexe Greenland and....Canada?! Wtf?!

[tegs07]

12 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

 

No, the NATO expansion is the real issue, supported by the EU.

 

Ukraines neutrality (or perceived neutrality) is the aim. Russia would be a pariah state if it had occupied and annexed the whole of Ukraine. Far easier to have toppled Zelensky and installed a puppet regime favourable to Russia (something the US did by proxy in toppling the elected Ukrainian government in 2014).

 

This is much more complex than Ukraine as a benign and neutral country that was quietly going about its life (as plucky little Belgium was in 2014).

 

The media needs to shift from the idea of Putin as a Hitlerian dictator hell bent on invading Europe. 
 

Your analysis of the reasons for invasion are much more likely to be the reason for it all.

 

The attempt to simplify this into a binary good v bad narrative completely denies the complexity of the situation.

NATO expansion is the reason given by Putin and you can accept this if you want but I think it’s nonsense. Any war that involves Russian invasion (troops entering Russian territory) is going nuclear and this doesn’t need any further encroachment towards Russian borders. 

 

Again Ukraines neutrality? Ukraine will never invade Russia. This is purely about spheres of influence and a buffer zone between Western democracy and Putins oligarchy. 

 

As for the threat to Europe it’s already occurring. I don’t see Tusk as a man who is prone to hysteria or hyperbole. Prevention is better than regret.

 

Until the EU abandons its plans for growth by developing markets within Eastern Europe then war is a possibility if not a probability. Maybe dialogue and guarantee that this will stop will prevent future conflict? Even so being prepared would be advisable. I would trust a Putin promise as much as a Trump one.

Edited Thursday at 09:48 by tegs07

[Burns-bass]

2 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

NATO expansion is the reason given by Putin and you can accept this if you want but I think it’s nonsense. Any war that involves Russian invasion is going nuclear and this doesn’t need any further encroachment towards Russian borders. 

 

Again Ukraines neutrality? Ukraine will never invade Russia. This is purely about spheres of influence and a buffer zone between Western democracy and Putins oligarchy. 

 

As for the threat to Europe it’s already occurring. I don’t see Tusk as a man who is prone to hysteria or hyperbole. Prevention is better than regret.

Your logic - shared by most politicians it seems - will see us inexorably slide into war with Russia. 
 

Fine if that’s what you want, but hugely dangerous and damaging to us all.

 

 

Trump can see this and is trying to avoid it. (The mechanism he’s using is cruel and punitive, but he’s a mob boss and if you want security, you pay for it. I this case, that’s about $500bn)

[tegs07]

1 hour ago, Burns-bass said:

Your logic - shared by most politicians it seems - will see us inexorably slide into war with Russia. 
 

Fine if that’s what you want, but hugely dangerous and damaging to us all.

 

 

Trump can see this and is trying to avoid it. (The mechanism he’s using is cruel and punitive, but he’s a mob boss and if you want security, you pay for it. I this case, that’s about $500bn)

My logic is to guarantee no further expansion into the baltics and a change of EU policy.

I actually think Macron’s 2 tier EU membership should be explored. Full alignment or trade based alignment.

Change should and has to be negotiated. As for Ukraine it’s way too complex for me to decide what is correct. Potentially Trumps solution of US protected economic interests rather than troops could work and should IMO be explored.

 

I would still not trust either Putin or Trump and it is in Europes interest to become stronger military and prepare for no US security guarantees. This leaves gaping holes in intelligence, cyber security, logistics, refuelling capabilities and much more. It will take years and should have happened during Trump MK1

 

Edit: NATO has kept peace in Europe for decades. Russian protestations about Europe re-arming being evidence of warmongering is absolute nonsense. All that they are doing is preparing for the USA to exit the alliance. Without the USA NATO is extremely vulnerable. It’s effectively blind and lame. Russia knows this and it’s own economy is in war footing with full scale re-armament. Not being prepared is far more dangerous and likely to lead to war.

Edited Thursday at 11:49 by tegs07

[Steve Browning]

39 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

A large majority of his Presidential Orders are being frustrated in the courts as being illegal. 

 

While Karoline is proclaiming he is getting things done, the truth is somewhat different. 

 

Once he starts overruling and ignoring the judges things alter somewhat.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-court-order-immigration-constitutional-crisis

 

My comment was more about how he might have been stopped at a point during his presidency. You're absolutely right about the excutive orders.

[Misdee]

54 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Russia annexing bits of Ukraine is akin to Vietnam?

 

How about Trump looking to annexe Greenland and....Canada?! Wtf?!

The point is that Nixon was lambasted for Operation Linebacker (unrestricted bombing of the North) just like Trump is being slated for playing hardball with Ukraine, but history has vindicated his approach as the catalyst to peace in the region. What if the Trump administrations controversial approach to the Ukraine brings peace? 

 

Similarly, received wisdom about Ronald Reagan during his presidency was was that he was an naive and incompetent fool completely unsuited and unqualified for such an important job. How could a mediocre B movie actor be in charge of the most powerful country in the world? And yet now he is widely acknowledged as one of Americas greatest ever leaders and the one who enabled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump could easily become subject of a similar revision, just for different reasons.

 

Just look at this tread on Basschat, 56 pages on  how stupid and what a nutter Trump is, but still his star is ascending. I can't stand him either, but there's a certain point at which you have to acknowledge his strengths, and there are many. He's a wicked  but very capable man and for the foreseeable future he's going to have things all his own way. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 

If Russia annexes all or part of Ukraine, America can live with that, and Europe will have no choice but to like it or lump it. 

 

  As I have mentioned previously on Basschat to much uproar,  historically the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one. From a Russian perspective there's a very strong case for saying that the Ukraine is part of Russia. Kiev is Russia's ancient capital, and Russia is a superpower with imperial ambitions. They want it back and one way or another they are likely to get it. That's the harsh reality.

 

 Despite all the protestations of outrage, what Trump is doing has tremendous popular support from the American public. This is just the beginning. He doesn't really want to annexe Canada, but Greenland could happen because it makes strategic sense for the USA, and Greenland would benefit from it, too. Don't forget, they are currently part of Denmark. How much sense does that make?

Edited Thursday at 10:33 by Misdee

[tegs07]

I think Trump and Musk are a b

14 minutes ago, Misdee said:

The point is that Nixon was lambasted for Operation Linebacker (unrestricted bombing of the North) just like Trump is being slated for playing hardball with Ukraine, but history has vindicated his approach as the catalyst to peace in the region. 

 

Similarly, received wisdom about Ronald Reagan during his presidency was was that he was an naive and incompetent fool completely unsuited and unqualified for such an important job. How could a mediocre B movie actor be in charge of the most powerful country in the world? And yet now he is widely acknowledged as one of Americas greatest ever leaders and the one who enabled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump could easily become subject of a similar revision, just for different reasons.

 

Just look at this tread on Basschat, 56 pages on what a nutter Trump is, but still his star is ascending. I can't stand him either, but there's a certain point at which you have to acknowledge his strengths, and there are many. He's a wicked man and the foreseeable future he's going to have things all his own way. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

If Russia annexes all or part of Ukraine, America can live with that, and Europe will have no choice but to like it or lump it. 

 

  As I have mentioned previously on Basschat to much uproar,  historically the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one. From a Russian perspective there's a very strong case for saying that the Ukraine is part of Russia. Kiev is Russia's ancient capital, and Russia is a superpower with imperial ambitions. They want it back and one way or another they are likely to get it. That's the harsh reality.

 

 Despite all the protestations of outrage, what Trump is doing has tremendous popular support from the American public. This is just the beginning. He doesn't really want to annexe Canada, but Greenland could happen because it makes strategic sense for the USA, and Greenland would benefit from it, too. Don't forget, they are currently part of Denmark. How much sense does that make?

Trump and Musk are a bit like Boris and Brexit. All swagger, sound bites, slogan and hype. They are slowly getting more entangled in red tape, judicial investigation, litigation, false starts, u-turns and mistakes. This is because their ambition far exceeds their authority or understanding. I still maintain that by the mid term elections the US economy will be stuck in stagflation (which they were well on the road to avoiding) the stock market will be in the doldrums (after bouts of correction), inflation will be back over 3% and the US public will be thoroughly sick of being guinea pigs in an economic experiment.

Time will tell.

Edited Thursday at 10:41 by tegs07

[Obrienp]

@Leonard Smalls it looks like your post got truncated. A bit worrying if reason 2 was that you had made unfavourable comments about the current US President. If the various US agencies that intrude on our privacy, are getting alarmed about posts of this nature on foreign forums, I think they need to look again at their algorithms. Surely there is a huge gap between disagreeing with policy, or even character and actively undermining the interests of the USA, or posing a physical threat. Democracies tolerate opposing views.

 

At least you found some humanity in the system, in the form of officer Jones.

[Al Krow]

40 minutes ago, Misdee said:

The point is that Nixon was lambasted for Operation Linebacker (unrestricted bombing of the North) just like Trump is being slated for playing hardball with Ukraine, but history has vindicated his approach as the catalyst to peace in the region. What if the Trump administrations controversial approach to the Ukraine brings peace? 

 

Similarly, received wisdom about Ronald Reagan during his presidency was was that he was an naive and incompetent fool completely unsuited and unqualified for such an important job. How could a mediocre B movie actor be in charge of the most powerful country in the world? And yet now he is widely acknowledged as one of Americas greatest ever leaders and the one who enabled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump could easily become subject of a similar revision, just for different reasons.

 

Just look at this tread on Basschat, 56 pages on  how stupid and what a nutter Trump is, but still his star is ascending. I can't stand him either, but there's a certain point at which you have to acknowledge his strengths, and there are many. He's a wicked  but very capable man and for the foreseeable future he's going to have things all his own way. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 

If Russia annexes all or part of Ukraine, America can live with that, and Europe will have no choice but to like it or lump it. 

 

  As I have mentioned previously on Basschat to much uproar,  historically the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one. From a Russian perspective there's a very strong case for saying that the Ukraine is part of Russia. Kiev is Russia's ancient capital, and Russia is a superpower with imperial ambitions. They want it back and one way or another they are likely to get it. That's the harsh reality.

 

 Despite all the protestations of outrage, what Trump is doing has tremendous popular support from the American public. This is just the beginning. He doesn't really want to annexe Canada, but Greenland could happen because it makes strategic sense for the USA, and Greenland would benefit from it, too. Don't forget, they are currently part of Denmark. How much sense does that make?

 

You make lots of valid points.

 

But surely Ukraine is no more part of Russia than Scotland is part of England? 

 

Nations come together by consent (eg the Act of Union 1707). Acts of conquest rarely end well for millions of people. And the egos of dictators should always come second for those who believe in a better world order?

 

The right of nations to self-determination is still an important guiding principle. If a majoirity of the Scottish people want to declare independence, it is not for anyone else to stop them, even if we disagree with the thinking.

 

The same freedom to choose should be the birth right of Ukrainians. And they have already chosen.

Edited Thursday at 11:07 by Al Krow

[tegs07]

A couple of questions for @Burns-bass. Have you considered the possibility that Trump views the EU as an economic competitor and its security is not in the US economic or geopolitical interests?

 

He certainly doesn’t seem enamoured with NATO or European security. If Trump did pull out NATO or even publicly stated that Article 5 was no longer in US interests would you be comfortable with the security implications?

 

NATO would effectively lose intelligence gathering capability. It’s ability to mobilise, ship troops or refuel aircraft would be severely diminished.

 

Would you trust Putin not to take advantage of this vulnerability or expect the leaders of Europe not to address them? 

 

It seems to me that with the knowledge that they have NOT plugging a gap left by the USA is ludicrous and it is something France has identified and stated as a priority for years. They were correct in maintaining a separate nuclear deterrent from the USA and IMO totally correct in determining a European military capable of operating without US involvement was important in the event that US and EU interests would diverge.

 

This is happening now and it’s extremely dangerous.

My reading of the situation is that the EU have finally woken up to a very serious situation and far from escalating towards WW3 they are belatedly filling a USA sized hole in their defence capabilities. A hole that leaves them very vulnerable.

Edited Thursday at 12:17 by tegs07

[TimR]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

 

You make lots of valid points.

 

But surely Ukraine is no more part of Russia than Scotland is part of England? 

 

Nations come together by consent (eg the Act of Union 1707). Acts of conquest rarely end well for millions of people. And the egos of dictators should always come second for those who believe in a better world order?

 

The right of nations to self-determination is still an important guiding principle. If a majoirity of the Scottish people want to declare independence, it is not for anyone else to stop them, even if we disagree with the thinking.

 

The same freedom to choose should be the birth right of Ukrainians. And they have already chosen.

 

Except the Russian side of the Ukraine had been in civil war for many years. 

 

The history of the region after the breakup of the USSR has been very turbulent and no one seems to be taking that into consideration. Zalensky is just one more in a line of leaders who has tried to create a Ukraine completely separate to Russia. 

 

It's just another Gaza strip problem.

[Agent 00Soul]

2 hours ago, Misdee said:

but still his star is ascending

 Surely you mean drone show:

 

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/did-donald-trump-drone-show-light-up-downtown-skyline-22691807

[Leonard Smalls]

1 hour ago, Obrienp said:

it looks like your post got truncated

It's a straight cut and paste from Alvin Gibb's FB post, with a sentence from me explaining what it was... Basically 3 members of UK Subs were held in custody (not me!) then deported. Charlie Harper somehow got in.

[prowla]

2 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I think Trump and Musk are a b

Trump and Musk are a bit like Boris and Brexit. All swagger, sound bites, slogan and hype. They are slowly getting more entangled in red tape, judicial investigation, litigation, false starts, u-turns and mistakes. This is because their ambition far exceeds their authority or understanding. I still maintain that by the mid term elections the US economy will be stuck in stagflation (which they were well on the road to avoiding) the stock market will be in the doldrums (after bouts of correction), inflation will be back over 3% and the US public will be thoroughly sick of being guinea pigs in an economic experiment.

Time will tell.

I wonder what the US equivalent of "remoaner" is?

[tegs07]

9 minutes ago, prowla said:

I wonder what the US equivalent of "remoaner" is?

No idea. I wonder what the US equivalent is between a plan and a plan managed in a pragmatic and competent manner?

[Obrienp]

20 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

It's a straight cut and paste from Alvin Gibb's FB post, with a sentence from me explaining what it was... Basically 3 members of UK Subs were held in custody (not me!) then deported. Charlie Harper somehow got in.

Ah, missed that bit at the start. I was mightily impressed with your musical track record. I am sure your actual band(s) are equally impressive.

 

Still, I think my basic point is still valid. Democracies tolerate opposing views…..

[Leonard Smalls]

1 hour ago, Obrienp said:

I am sure your actual band(s) are equally impressive

 

Aw shucks! 😁 Bear in mind that one man's impressive is another's "shut that f-in racket up before I call the police!"

 

1 hour ago, Obrienp said:

Democracies tolerate opposing views

 

Indeed... Or at least, hopefully indeed!

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, Leonard Smalls said:

... one man's 'impressive' is everyone else's "shut that f-in racket up before we call the police!"...

 

Fixed. 

 

...

 

 

 

[Beer of the Bass]

Why are we calling it "The Ukraine"? As far as I understand it, the practice of calling it "Ukraine" without the definite article was established when the country formally became independent in 1991. "The Ukraine" was how it was referred to as a region of the former Soviet Union. So our choice of language may reveal bias one way or another.

[peteb]

6 hours ago, Misdee said:

The point is that Nixon was lambasted for Operation Linebacker (unrestricted bombing of the North) just like Trump is being slated for playing hardball with Ukraine, but history has vindicated his approach as the catalyst to peace in the region. What if the Trump administrations controversial approach to the Ukraine brings peace? 

 

Similarly, received wisdom about Ronald Reagan during his presidency was was that he was an naive and incompetent fool completely unsuited and unqualified for such an important job. How could a mediocre B movie actor be in charge of the most powerful country in the world? And yet now he is widely acknowledged as one of Americas greatest ever leaders and the one who enabled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump could easily become subject of a similar revision, just for different reasons.

 

Just look at this tread on Basschat, 56 pages on  how stupid and what a nutter Trump is, but still his star is ascending. I can't stand him either, but there's a certain point at which you have to acknowledge his strengths, and there are many. He's a wicked  but very capable man and for the foreseeable future he's going to have things all his own way. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 

If Russia annexes all or part of Ukraine, America can live with that, and Europe will have no choice but to like it or lump it. 

 

  As I have mentioned previously on Basschat to much uproar,  historically the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one. From a Russian perspective there's a very strong case for saying that the Ukraine is part of Russia. Kiev is Russia's ancient capital, and Russia is a superpower with imperial ambitions. They want it back and one way or another they are likely to get it. That's the harsh reality.

 

 Despite all the protestations of outrage, what Trump is doing has tremendous popular support from the American public. This is just the beginning. He doesn't really want to annexe Canada, but Greenland could happen because it makes strategic sense for the USA, and Greenland would benefit from it, too. Don't forget, they are currently part of Denmark. How much sense does that make?

 

I'm sorry, but this could have been written by a Russian bot! You've swallowed the Kremlin propaganda hook, line & sinker. 

 

First of all, Reagan was hardly a brilliant man, but he was a successful leader. This is because he had strong views and then appointed people with the same views to put together policy and then it carry out. He was guided by advice every step of the way and stayed unwaveringly on-message. Trump is completely incapable of dong that. I have heard Trump apologists try to suggest that he is playing some sort of 3D chess game and by sacrificing Europe he will somehow restrict China's ambitions and maintain the USA's position as the only true world superpower. I don't believe a word of that and think that his international policy is guided by 1) hating the EU because of its economic strength, 2) feeling sympathetic to Russian interests because they helped him at a crucial time in his business career, and 3) hating Zelensky because he refused to go along with his plan to discredit Biden's family. 

 

You might quite rightly say that Russia has a complex history with Ukraine. But you could equally say the same about Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, the Baltics and half of Poland. Putin seems to have imperial ambitions and all the above countries will be in his sights (with the possible exception of Poland, who might be too strong for him to attempt to invade). But I don't understand why Europe should have to 'lump' this. The other European powers have far bigger economies, greater manpower and will have, now they are being forced to rearm, able to project a greater military power than Russia could dream of! All Putin can do is threaten us with nukes, despite a) no one knowing if he genuinely still has this power and b) France definitely still has the ability to take out every Russian military target, Moscow & St Petersburg in an hour or two. 

 

No one really knows what will happen with Trump, but the economic chaos he is causing is going to cost him lots of support from the American people. This will especially be with those who voted for him who are MAGA-lite, who are going to suffer most from his economic policies and who supported him because they don't like certain aspects of the 'woke' agenda pushed by American liberal politics. He has two years to make himself a King and therefore untouchable. Alternatively, in four years time he could be living in a Moscow flat, hoping that he isn't going to hear the nuclear sirens that night! 

 

Edited Thursday at 16:30 by peteb

[tauzero]

8 hours ago, tegs07 said:

This is Putin’s biggest threat. However it is a zero sum game. Their existence vs the rest of the world. France, the UK and the USA have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to use them as there is no winning. I very much doubt the countries that are Russias economic lifeline (China and India) would permit Russia to use them either.

 

I'd also question whether Putin's generals would allow him to use them either, as they would understand the consequences. They'd be more likely to take him to the top floor of a nice high building for a cup of tea.