Tag: donald trump

Will Trump End Washington’s Proxy War in Ukraine?

Donald Trump’s election as president is fueling speculation that he will terminate U.S. financial and logistical support for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia.  Trump himself has contributed to that speculation during his June 28, 2024 debate with President Biden when he said, “If we had a real president, a president that was respected by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, he would have never invaded Ukraine.”  Indeed, Trump has boasted that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours.

His critics, both in the United States and the other NATO countries, however, contend that he would likely do so by abandoning Ukraine and appeasing Russia.  Allegations that Trump was a “puppet” of Russian President Vladimir Putin cast a pall over his entire first term as president, and there are no signs that his opponents have abandoned that tactic.  It was an absurd accusation, since Trump’s policy toward Russia actually was more hardline than that of his predecessors.  Not only did he ship arms to Ukraine (a step that Barack Obama had refused to take) but he engineered the U.S. withdrawal from two major arms control agreements (Open Skies and Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) that Putin and other Russian leaders considered vital to their country’s security.  The Trump administration also continued NATO’s provocative expansion into Eastern Europe despite the Kremlin’s escalating warnings about such unfriendly moves.

The notion that Trump was “soft” on Russia during his first term was (and remains) a destructive, highly politicized myth.  Over the past four years, though, Trump and at least some supporters in Congress, the news media, and the foreign policy community seem to have gained an understanding that Washington’s current Russia policy has been disastrous and requires drastic reforms.  It is less certain whether he will muster the courage to ignore the smears and make the necessary policy changes to begin repairing relations with Russia.

Keep reading

Trump forms new alliance to stop aid to Ukraine

Ukraine could stop receiving aid from the West under the influence of an alliance led by newly elected US President Donald Trump, writes The Independent newspaper. Despite this development, though, Trump has found interest in elements of the so-called “Victory Plan” of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“A surprising trinity of Donald Trump, Hungary’s right-wing prime minister Viktor Orbán and Pope Francis could spell the end to hopes for continued support for Ukraine,” The Independent reported.

As the article pointed out, in recent years, Hungary has been practically alone among Western countries in wanting to end the conflict in Ukraine, and the only figure who shared Budapest’s position was Pope Francis. However, the views of the new American president and the leadership of Hungary coincide on a number of issues, including peace in Ukraine, so new opportunities for cooperation have emerged.

“The Pope, along with Hungary, has called for a ceasefire and talks ‘to break the cycle’ of war and achieve peace,” the article stated.

Following Trump’s victory in the US elections, Orbán said that his country’s isolation is over and that a growing number of EU leaders are cautiously switching to a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. This growing pressure on Zelensky will eventually force him to begin negotiations directly with Russia, even after promising to never speak with the Kremlin.

“Last week at the European Political Community summit, Mr Orbán boasted of how ‘the world is changing’ with Mr Trump re-elected, while renewing his demands for a Ukrainian ceasefire,” noted the British newspaper. “The clash with Mr Zelensky, who was at the summit, saw the Ukrainian leader note that the Hungarian prime minister is the one NATO member state leader to oppose Ukraine’s membership of the defence alliance.”

Speaking to The Independent, Hungary’s ambassador to the Vatican, Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen, said: “During Donald Trump’s first presidency, Hungarian-American political relations were at their peak, with dialogue and negotiations taking centre stage in resolving conflicts that threaten world security.”

“Following the decision of the American electorate a few days ago, we really have good hope that Hungarian-American political cooperation will return to its peak: we share similar views on peace, illegal immigration and the protection of families. I believe there is a better chance than ever that peace will finally return to Ukraine after almost a thousand days of war.”

Keep reading

Trump Taps Pro-Marijuana Legalization Congressman Matt Gaetz For U.S. Attorney General

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to serve as the next U.S. attorney general—a selection that would put one of the only GOP members of Congress who actively supports and voted for marijuana legalization into the nation’s top law enforcement position.

As Trump works to put together his cabinet, the choice of Gaetz stands out as one of the most positive signals that the state-level cannabis marketplace will not be impeded under his administration. And it also bodes well for the ongoing Biden administration-led marijuana rescheduling effort that Trump has endorsed.

Gaetz was one of three Republican members of the House to approve a Democratic-led bill to federally legalize marijuana, titled the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act in 2022. He also supported a prior version of the legislation despite his concerns with equity-focused provisions.

Keep reading

Ukraine Disturbed Over ‘No Place’ for Mike Pompeo in New Trump Team – Report

President-elect Donald Trump announced last week that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will not serve in the incoming US administration.

Kiev is concerned about the fact that former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will not be part of the new US administration following Donald Trump’s election victory, The Economist reports.

Senior Ukrainian officials “were disturbed” when Trump announced “there would be no place for Pompeo, seen as more sympathetic [to Ukraine]”, the media adds, quoting one of the officials as saying that it is “a very negative development”.

“The worry now is that Trump’s offer to Ukraine will come to resemble something closer to ideas put forward by J.D. Vance, the incoming vice president,” something that “would essentially rule out [Ukraine’s] NATO membership“, among other things, the report also said.

This comes after the president-elect denied media reports about his intention to nominate Pompeo as the new secretary of defense.

Keep reading

Veterans: Why we want Trump to keep Iraq withdrawal deal

The election is now behind us and the impacts on America’s foreign policy are emerging. One thing that shouldn’t change is our commitment to the deal reached between the Biden administration and the Iraqi government for a withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq in 2025.

As veterans who served in Iraq, we are urging the new administration to stick to the agreed timetable and see to it that American service members are no longer risking their lives in Iraq.

Ian Robinson, Air Force: Iraq—my first deployment in 2003 feels like a distant memory, yet when I close my eyes, I can vividly picture the sand swirling along the endless road that stretches to the horizon. Sometimes, I can almost feel the scorching heat on my skin; it’s like standing in front of a hairdryer on its highest setting on the hottest day of summer, dusty and dirty. This land has endured a lifetime of conflict and carries a heavy weight of animosity, and our troops still remain stationed there. Iraq is a place where we have never truly belonged, and the most promising path toward future stability may lie in our departure, especially after all the time and money and lives we have spent there.

Laura Hartman, US Army: As a 2004 Iraq War veteran, I’ve seen the toll war takes on warfighters, families, and innocent civilians. War leaves lives shattered, deep moral injuries and genetic conditions that affect generations. After reporting a military sexual assault, I left our FOB only to meet with military lawyers. As a former VA psychiatric nurse, I saw the truth of war unfold through my patients’ pain. Suicide prevention and mental health treatment are shared responsibilities. After decades of lies, bloodshed and betrayal, I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. Focus on nation-building here at home. It’s time to demand political accountability for the consequences of war. Enough is enough.

Adam Jahnke, USMC: Iraq is a bitter memory for me. I was injured and lost two friends from my platoon. I served with 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines, an infantry Company, from 2005-2009, I made two deployments to Iraq in 2006, and 2008. This time was the “best” worst time of my life. The lack of sleep, operational tempo, and challenges of a combat deployment were drastic. Everyone to the right and left of me rose to the occasion and fought hard, for each other, the Marine Corps, and our country. However, many of us including myself now feel our sacrifice was for naught. The loss of life and of resources was wasteful. Many of us suffer lifelong issues with PTSD, TBI, and other health conditions related to our deployments, as we are left wondering: “what was our sacrifice in Iraq for.”

Brian Fay, Army: I enlisted in the Army in 2007 during the second surge into Iraq, but I didn’t deploy until late 2009. I remember earlier that year watching the news as President Obama signed an agreement to draw down troops and leave only a presence of “non-combat” troops to train and advise. I went to Iraq shortly after, wondering just what our mission would be. We had just spent the last year and half training for urban warfare.

Aside from a few missions we ran with the Iraq Police, there was little advising and assisting being done. For a year we went out every night on missions to prevent IEDs on critical supply routes and reacting to rocket and mortar attacks on our FOB. Every day, during my supposedly “non-combat” tour in Iraq, my life and the lives of the soldiers I was with were put in danger. And for what? The only thing the agreement that President Obama signed with Iraq accomplished was restricting our rules of engagement with the enemy and putting us in further danger. There is no such thing as troops being able to stay in a combat zone and not be in some sort of life-threatening danger every single day.

Keep reading

Trump has a mandate to end the Ukraine War

While no single foreign policy issue commanded anything near voters’ concern for domestic challenges, the twin spiraling crises in Europe and the Middle East led a large swathe of the electorate to conclude that foreign policy is too important to be left to the technocrats.

President-elect Trump deftly exploited this lingering anti-establishment sentiment first by picking JD Vance as his running mate and then by defining himself against Harris — who did everything she could to advertise the Democratic party to anti-Trump neoconservatives, up to and including by christening Liz Cheney a core campaign surrogate — as the anti-war candidate.

The difficult but necessary work of resolving the Ukraine war, the most dangerous and destructive conflict on the European continent since 1945, now falls to the incoming Trump administration. But doing so requires coming to grips with, and rejecting, the shibboleths and superstitions that have characterized the established approach to Ukraine.

When diagnosing the crises facing U.S. foreign policy, it pays to consult the prior generation of American diplomats. As is well known, the Cold War exercised a disciplining effect on its American and Soviet figurants. The neck to neck nature of that rivalry, coupled with what both parties recognized as the catastrophic consequences of direct confrontation, meant that neither side was in a position to dictate to the other.

The two superpowers were bound to a shared logic of strategic caution that permitted and, indeed, necessitated competition on the margins but harshly discouraged an uncompromising “winner takes all” mentality on existential questions of war and peace.

This provided fertile ground for the development of a decision-making community eager to learn from their mistakes, obsessively grasping for even the most minute ways in which U.S. policy can be refined or reformed. It is not brute coercive force but rather a persistent open-mindedness, tempered by a nagging recognition and respect for the limits of American power, that produced such exertions of political genius as the long telegram and policy of detente that enabled the U.S. to contend on favorable footing with its Soviet competitor.

Keep reading

DOGE Is Official: Trump Announces Elon And Vivek To Head Up Efficiency Drive

Presdient elect Trump has officially announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will head a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In a press release, Trump noted “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies – Essential to the “Save America” Movement.”

Trump added, “It will become, potentially, The Manhattan Project of our time. Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of DOGE for a very long time. To drive this kind of drastic change, The Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.”

“I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans,” Trump continued, adding “Importantly, we will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 Trillion Dollars of Government Spending.”

“They will work together to liberate our Economy, and make the US Government accountable to WE THE PEOPLE,” Trump declared.

Keep reading

The Man Who Can Help Trump Bring Peace to Korea

Columbia Professor of Genetics Joseph D. Terwilliger has an exceptional resume. Along with his post at an elite institution, he is an accomplished tuba player, speaks a multitude of languages, has traveled to nearly every country on Washington’s official enemies list, and served as translator for NBA legend Dennis Rodman when he traveled to North Korea to meet with Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un.

So, how did Terwilliger translate the conversation between two of the most fascinating people on the planet?

Part of the story involves his career as a geneticist. He spent years teaching at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. Unlike the perception most Americans have of North Koreans, Joe speaks highly of the people and paints a picture distinctly different from the Kim-run death cult that is often presented.

The other part involves Terwilliger making a $2,500 gamble. After Rodman made his first trip to North Korea, Joe saw an opportunity.

Terwilliger was in North Korea during Rodman’s first visit. He told the Libertarian Institute that he witnessed the students “[rethinking] their stereotypes about Americans” because Rodman was willing to say positive things about their country.

So, Joe won a game of HORSE against Dennis with a $2,500 silent auction bid. There, he and Rodman discussed a return visit to North Korea.

“[The] hope was to engage Kim Jong Un to try and build a relationship based on trust,” a mission Joe believes he was able to accomplish. “When we took the basketball players to [North Korea on Kim’s] birthday, [the supreme leader] remarked that we were the first Americans that ever kept their word.”

During Donald Trump’s first presidency, he showed a willingness to break with long-established policy in Washington, which has insisted that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons before any talks can begin.

Of course, Kim would never give up his nuclear arsenal, as it serves as a deterrent to an attack from the United States. But that does not mean relations with the DPRK could not improve.

Keep reading

Why Trump is Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement (again)

It’s going to be at least four years of “Drill baby, drill!” as President-elect Donald Trump has said numerous times over the last few years.

With Trump’s election, the United States will now definitely withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump is seeking to overhaul energy and environmental policies, aiming to dismantle the Left’s climate agenda and eliminate programs that impede the country’s economic growth. While President Joe Biden’s negotiators will be at this week’s COP talks in Azerbaijan, nothing they agree to will be binding for the Trump administration.

In fact, Reuters is reporting that Trump’s transition team has already prepared executive orders and proclamations on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and shrinking the size of some national monuments to allow more drilling and mining.

The new Trump administration will push for a major ramp up of oil and gas exploration within the US, roll back environmental protections as well as impose heavy tariffs on electric vehicles and solar panels coming from China.

Trump is also expected to end the pause on permitting new liquefied natural gas exports to big markets in Asia and Europe and revoke a waiver that allows California and other states to have tighter pollution standards, according to a New York Times report.

Trump is also reported to be under pressure to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the first time if he becomes president.

While leaving the Paris Agreement would be legally straightforward, legal experts had previously been divided on whether Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC without the approval of the US Senate and – if he did – how easy it would be for a future president to re-join.

However, given that the Senate is now in Republican hands, Trump could move forward on this should he so choose.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with efforts to keep it under 1.5 degrees.

Democrats have made climate change and the goal of limiting global warning a new religion.

They claim Trump risks derailing American climate policy, as well as the global fight against climate change.

They have called his election a “crushing blow,” a “dark day for the climate,” and “the greatest civilizational and climatic setback on our planet.”

Democrats believe the Paris Climate Agreement represents a positive, collective global effort to address climate change.

As part of the Agreement, countries set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fostering accountability and progress tracking. Developed nations pledge financial and technical support to help developing countries transition to greener economies and adapt to climate impacts, which can alleviate economic inequality.

The US has already committed billions in American taxpayer dollars to developing countries, a move many conservatives are upset about.

Keep reading

EU Nations in NATO Prepare for Trump Presidency

European Union nations are concerned about Trump’s victory, as Trump has historically opposed the NATO alliance siphoning funding from the US. Before Trump, only a handful of nations were paying their 2% of GDP obligation. World leaders are now calling for a European army, but a plan is already in place for a unified army that NATO could rapidly deploy.

Now, EU nations host multinational armies of 1,500 troops and have had them in place since 2007, yet they have never been deployed. France famously vetoed plans for a unified European army, but President Macron is now open to creating one. The Baltic nations also oppose a unified EU army as they believe it will decrease NATO’s strength. The UK once vetoed the proposal as well when they were within the bloc.

“If we do not start thinking about ways to organise our common defence, we will not be strong enough when we need to defend ourselves, or our neighbours,” voiced Polish leader Luc Frieden. Poland became the top contributor to NATO in terms of GDP after Russia invaded Ukraine.

“At the beginning, we should go ahead with a coalition of the willing. A few countries that are ready to pool their sovereign rights to be more efficient in defence.” He added, “Of course, each country will want to keep control over important decisions such as when to activate its army, when to send its soldiers to war. But it is also obvious that the current situation does not offer the level of security that we need. So, we need to start thinking about a European army.”

Keep reading