Trump Announces ‘Framework’ Of Deal For Greenland With NATO

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” a move he said will halt a looming round of tariffs on Europe.

Trump announced the development in a Truth Social post, saying the talks prompted him to scrap punitive tariffs that were set to hit a range of European countries starting Feb. 1.

“Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,” Trump wrote.

“Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Keep reading

Trump Begins Quiet NATO Drawdown as Greenland Clash Exposes One-Sided Alliance

Amid sky high tensions with globalist Eurocrats over Greenland, the Trump administration has begun a quiet but consequential rollback of America’s military footprint inside NATO, signaling a broader rethinking of Washington’s long-standing role as Europe’s sole security guarantor.

The move comes amid rapidly escalating tensions with western EU ‘allies’ (i.e. liberal globalists who’ve attempted to sabotage Trump at every step of his presidency) over Greenland, defense spending, and what President Trump increasingly views as a one-sided alliance.

According to a report from The Washington Post, which cites multiple officials, the Pentagon is preparing to eliminate roughly 200 American military positions embedded within NATO command and advisory bodies. These personnel cuts will affect several of the alliance’s most influential planning centers, including intelligence, special operations, and maritime command structures.

The reductions will be carried out primarily by declining to replace American officers as their assignments end, rather than through abrupt withdrawals. While modest in raw numbers, the cuts will significantly reduce America’s role inside NATO’s decision-making architecture.

Among the entities impacted are the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre in the United Kingdom, the Allied Special Operations Forces Command in Brussels, and STRIKFORNATO in Portugal, which coordinates maritime operations. In total, roughly half of the American personnel assigned to these bodies will be removed.

American force posture in Europe will technically remain near 80,000 troops, just above the threshold that would require congressional approval for deeper reductions.

The move, for the Trump administration, reflects a long-standing argument: Europe must take responsibility for its own defense, and if it doesn’t, it ought to stop lecturing America or acting like a global player.

Pentagon officials allegedly have privately told European diplomats that America expects Europe to assume the bulk of conventional defense capabilities—intelligence, missile defense, and logistics—by 2027, a timeline many European leaders admit is unrealistic.

The personnel cuts also align with a newly released American National Security Strategy (NSS) that prioritizes the Western Hemisphere over Europe. The document explicitly calls for reallocating American military resources closer to home, where border security, cartel violence, and hemispheric stability now dominate strategic thinking.

Keep reading

Carney Threatens US, Goes Full Vassal State As He Kowtows To China’s Xi Jinping -Gives Merit To Trump’s Greenland Argument

The former nation of Canada is now a full vassal state of the Chinese Communist Party. This is of course already known, as Justin Trudeau moved far down that path while trying to conceal his true intentions.

Mark Carney is doing no such thing as he kowtows to China’s Xi Jinping while on a recent trip to China.

“A pleasure to meet with President Xi in Beijing. Canada and China are forging a new strategic partnership. We’re leveraging our strengths — focusing on trade, energy, agriculture, seafood, and other areas where we can make massive gains for both our peoples,” Carney declared in Beijing.

“The progress we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order.”

A reporter asked — What did you mean by the new world order?

“The architecture, the multilateral system is being eroded—undercut. The question is what gets built in its place,” Carney replied

Regardig Greenland, Carney threatened Trump.

“We are NATO partners with Denmark. Our full partnership and our obligations to Article 5 and Article 2 stand. We stand fully behind those.”

The US is urging allies to move faster on reducing reliance on Chinese critical minerals, planning a Feb. 4 meeting of foreign ministers to strengthen and diversify supply chains, reported Bloomberg.

It is not likely President Trump will take these comments sitting down.

The move may backfire as the sight of a Canadian leader licking Beijing’s boots will likely increase the American public’s support for President Trump’s Greenland viewpoint.

Keep reading

What’s Behind Washington’s Signaling Support For NATO Troops In Ukraine?

It might be a negotiating tactic to pressure Russia into concessions on its maximalist goals in the conflict as a quid pro quo for not reprioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and thus reducing the odds that they’ll actually deploy there.

France and the UK recently committed to deploying troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of their latest proposed security guarantees to that country, the principle of which was praised for the first time ever by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the US’ Special Envoys for talks with Russia. The Paris Declaration that France and the UK signed also pledged their support for “Participation in a proposed US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism”. All of this certainly raises concern in Russia.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared last February during his speech at NATO HQ that his country won’t consider member states’ troops in Ukraine to be covered by Article 5 and won’t deploy any of its own there either as part of any security guarantee. In light of the Paris Declaration, however, some in Russia might wonder whether the US is soon planning to reverse both policies to protect its NATO allies’ troops in Ukraine upon their deployment and deploy its own there too for monitoring a ceasefire.

Putin himself warned as recently as last September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” It’s therefore easy to see how their deployment en masse, unlike the minor unofficial French and UK troop presence in Odessa that Russian spies confirmed later that same month, could spiral out of control into World War III if Russia targets their forces. That might not happen, though, if the US’ support for the latest security guarantees is just a negotiating tactic (at least for now).

To explain, Trump 2.0 could have continued pumping Ukraine with weapons for free and never initiated talks with Russia if it wasn’t sincere about ending the conflict, all while gradually ramping up escalations against Russia as part of a “boiling the frog” approach for normalizing the path to World War III.

Keep reading

Russia Repeats Long-Standing Objection To Any Deal That Puts NATO Troops in Ukraine

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Thursday repeated its long-standing objection to troops from NATO countries deploying to Ukrainian territory as part of a potential future peace deal, as Ukraine and its Western backers continue to push the idea.

“The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warns that the deployment of military units, military facilities, warehouses, and other infrastructure of Western countries on Ukrainian territory will be classified as foreign intervention, posing a direct threat to the security of not only Russia but also other European countries,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

“All such units and facilities will be considered legitimate combat targets of the Russian Armed Forces,” Zakharova added.

Her statement came after the UK and France signed a “declaration of intent” committing to lead a troop deployment to Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the declaration “paves the way for the legal framework, under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil,” though the document is lacking in details on what the force would actually look like.

Keep reading

CRINGEWORTHY: Whoopi Goldberg of ‘The View’ Wonders Why NATO Hasn’t Rescued America From Trump

On ‘The View’ today, host Whoopi Goldberg wondered why NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) has not intervened to save America from Trump, the duly elected President of the United States.

Does she actually think foreign militaries are going to land on our shores and remove Trump the way we just took out Maduro? Is that what she wants?

Who watches this show and takes it seriously? Who thinks this is an intelligent take and not painfully, embarrassingly stupid?

NewsBusters reported:

On Wednesday’s edition of The View, their inciting rhetoric reached a new dangerous level when moderator Whoopi Goldberg seemingly called on NATO to save America from President Trump and “GET HIM OUT!” She claimed America no longer had a government and demanded to know “where is everybody,” particularly NATO since they’ve helped us out before after 9/11. She also claimed Trump’s new foreign policy goal was “global domination.”…

Of course, they failed to mention it was part of the Russian ghost fleet and that it has sapped through multiple flags.

Later in the same segment, Whoopi shouted and demanded to know “Where is everybody?!” and recalled how NATO once came to our aid in a time of need, as if were in such a time again:

GOLDBERG: Let me just say this, here’s my question! Where is everybody?! Where is everybody else?! We come to everybody’s aid.

SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah.

GOLDBERG: We help everybody. NATO, they came and helped us after 9/11. Where is everybody? Because we’re all —

SARA HAINES: They’re worrying about Greenland right now!

Goldberg seemed to go completely insane, screaming about America supposedly not having a government: “Where is the government?! Do you realize we don’t have a government?!” Adding: “And this is a huge and should be our biggest bitch right now.”

Keep reading

NATO Countries Scare Their Populations On Christmas With Hyped ‘Russian Nuclear Bombers’ Flight

On Western Christmas, December 25, Russian nuclear-capable bombers conducted a “scheduled” flight over waters in the Arctic region, specifically in neutral waters of the Norwegian and Barents Seas. This prompted “fighter jets of foreign countries” to escort them and mirror them from afar, Russia’s defense ministry has confirmed.

While the country origins of the Western aircraft which responded remain unclear, the Kremlin had notified NATO in advance of the somewhat routine flight path. The bodies of water in question lie north of Scandinavia and northwest of Russia, which is quite far from the UK, and yet British media did what they do best: exaggerate and hype Russian nuclear bombers being “sent” by Putin “to the UK”…and on Christmas!

And never mind the fact that for Russia and its Orthodox Church, it is not Christmas. Russian Orthodox Christmas falls on January 7, according the Julian calendar ecclesiastical dating system.

These bodies of water lie far away from Britain, and is a standard flight path for Russia’s military. “At certain stages of the route, long-range bombers were escorted by fighter jets of foreign countries,” the Russian defense ministry disclosed.

The ministry further said that such flights “regularly take place in many regions and are in accordance with international law.”

Highlighting that these bombers were not at all ‘sent’ to the UK, one political commentator says as follows:

British media outlets like the Mirror and The Sun have reported that Russian nuclear-capable bombers flew a long-range patrol over the Norwegian Sea on Christmas Day Dec 25, 2025. Which was described as a deliberate act close to the notional “Santa Claus flight path”. NATO warplanes were scrambled to monitor the aircraft.

This is how the media spinned it! When it was two Russian Tu-95MS long-range bombers known as “Bears” that conducted a scheduled routine, seven-hour flight over “neutral waters” in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. The media made it sound like they were threatening NATO. When NATO was informed by the Russians the path that was taken.

The distant, far northern body of water in question…

Keep reading

Gabbard blasts ‘deep state warmonger’ report claiming Putin seeks to invade Eastern Europe, warns NATO and EU pushing U.S. toward war with Russia

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard refuted a report claiming that U.S. intelligence reports are finding that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks to capture all of Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe formerly under Soviet control.

Gabbard dismissed a Reuters report claiming that Putin still has the intention of expanding his war past Ukraine, citing six anonymous sources.

The report, released on Saturday, claims that a September U.S. intelligence report contradicts President Donald Trump and his negotiators, who have stated that Putin is seeking an end to the war in Ukraine.

The report added that U.S. intelligence has been consistent on the matter since Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, aligning with European leaders on the belief that Putin seeks to take back former Soviet bloc states by force, including NATO allies.

“The intelligence has always been that Putin wants more,” Democrat House Intelligence Committee member Mike Quigley (Ill.) told Reuters. “The Europeans are convinced of it. The Poles are absolutely convinced of it. The Baltics think they’re first.”

Gabbard responded to the report on Saturday afternoon, criticizing “deep state warmongers and their propaganda media” for attempting to undermine President Donald Trump’s peace efforts.

“This is a lie and propaganda @Reuters is willingly pushing on behalf of warmongers who want to undermine President Trump’s tireless efforts to end this bloody war that has resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides,” Gabbard wrote.

Gabbard went on to accuse NATO and the EU of wanting to lure the United States into a direct military conflict with Russia.

Keep reading

Volodymyr Zelensky’s Non-Compromise NATO Compromise

A key reason that Russia went to war in Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO; a key reason that Ukraine went to war with Russia was to defend their right to join NATO. On December 14, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave up Ukraine’s right to join NATO. He presented the concession as a compromise. But it is not really a compromise. Zelensky may intend the non-compromise to leverage concessions from Russia, but it may not really change anything.

That blocking Ukraine accession to NATO was Moscow’s primary motivation has been confirmed by NATO, by Ukraine and by the United States. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General at the start of the war, says that “no more NATO enlargement… was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine… [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

Davyd Arakhamiia, who led the Ukrainian negotiating team in Istanbul, says that an assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO was the “key point” for Russia. “It was the most important thing for them… They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to… neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO.”  Zelensky said, in his first interview after the invasion, “As far as I remember, they started the war because of this.”

Amanda Sloat, the former Special assistant to President Biden and Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council, was recently caught suggesting that a guarantee that Ukraine not join NATO could have prevented the war. “We had some conversations even before the war started about, what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘Fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, you know, if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion’ – which at that point it may well have done,” she said. “There is certainly a question, three years on now, you know, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks? It certainly would have prevented the destruction and loss of life… If you wanna do an alternative version of history, you know, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January 2022, ‘Fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we’ll stay neutral. Ukraine could’ve made a deal, I guess, in, what, March, April 2022 around the time of the Istanbul talks.”

But Ukraine did not make that deal because the United States, the U.K., Poland and their partners pushed them not to. They promised Ukraine whatever they need for as long as they need it to fight Russia in defense of the “core principle” that Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances and that NATO has the right to expand.

Nearly four years and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, Ukraine has surrendered the right to join NATO. On December 14, Zelensky said that he is ready to give up the demand for NATO membership in exchange for “bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States – namely, Article 5–like guarantees… as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others.”

Zelensky presented this concession as “a compromise on our part.” But it is not really a compromise for three reasons.

The first is that the retraction of the promise that Ukraine would join NATO was already a done deal. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never going to happen.

That reality was implicitly stated by Biden and explicitly stated by Trump. It is point number 7 in Trump’s 28-point peace plan. The reality has been recognized by Zelensky who has “understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine” since the start of the war. He has, since that time, “acknowledged” that Ukraine “cannot enter” the “supposedly open” NATO door and that, though “publicly, the doors remain open,” in reality, Ukraine is “not going to be a NATO member.” Any hope of resuscitating that dream died in the recently released 2025 National Security Strategy of the United States of America that states the policy priority of “Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.”

Keep reading

The EU is getting ready for its most dangerous move

Modern diplomacy is increasingly taking on strange and contradictory forms. Participants in the latest round of Ukraine-related talks in Berlin report significant progress and even a degree of rapprochement. How accurate these claims are is hard to judge. When Donald Trump says the positions have converged by 90%, he may be correct in a purely numerical sense. But the remaining 10% includes issues of fundamental importance to all sides. This, however, does not stop Trump from insisting that progress is being made. He needs to create a sense of inevitability, believing momentum itself can force an outcome. Perhaps he is right.

What is more paradoxical is the configuration of the negotiations themselves. On one side sits Ukraine, a direct participant in the conflict. On the other are the Western European countries surrounding it. Indirect participants who, in practice, are doing everything possible to prevent an agreement from being reached too quickly. Their goal is clear: To persuade Kiev not to give in to pressure. Meanwhile, the US presents itself as a neutral mediator, seeking a compromise acceptable to everyone.

There are obvious reasons to doubt American neutrality, but let us assume for the sake of argument that Washington is acting in good faith. Even then, one crucial actor is conspicuously absent from the visible negotiating process: Russia. In principle, this is not unusual. Mediators often work separately with opposing sides. But in the public narrative, events are presented as if the most important decisions are being made without Moscow. Trump’s allies and intermediaries pressure Zelensky and the Western Europeans to accept certain terms, after which Russia is expected to simply agree. If it does not, it is immediately accused of sabotaging peace.

Keep reading