Tag Archives: nato

Trump has shafted the U.S.A. and torpedoed the ‘special relationship’. Hurrah!!

Leave a reply

Let me start by confessing that the nearest I come to being racist is in hating the U.S.A, and about half of its people. Please note I say ‘half’, as the other half are amongst the most welcoming, intelligent, and generous people I have met anywhere, but the obnoxious half …, don’t get me started. Anyway, I am not proud of it and wish it weren’t so …, more than ever!

But having said that, I think I am in one of the biggest growing clubs in the world this week. I think that Trump’s appearances in Davos, Switzerland, over the last two days may go down in the history books as the moment that just about the whole of Europe, if not most of the world decided that enough is enough. I am sure you will have heard all about it, but here it is in its entirety:

Watching it is more than 90 minutes of your life that you will never get back, but while it boring and tedious on the one hand, it is fascinating, bewildering and disturbing on the other. Simultaneously!

Let me fact check a few of his most outrageous and pernicious lies:

“Inflation is defeated”

In December it was 2.7%, on an admittedly slowly reducing trend, as seen worldwide since the sharp price rises seen in the Covid pandemic, but still way above the Federal Reserve target of 2%, and higher than 9 out 10 of the years preceding the pandemic. As far as I am aware the cost-of-living crisis is just as real in the U.S. as it is in the U.K.

“Foreign Investment in the U.S. is surging”

He cited a figure of “$18trillion, maybe $20trillion”. To say these figures are fanciful would be an understatement and a half. In 2025, we have known figures for the first three quarters. These add up to less than a quarter of one trillion at $244billion. Estimates for the full year range from $300 billion to $350 billion at best. Predictions for 2026 range from a fallback to around $250billion (based on worries about geopolitical tensions, mostly created by Trump) to a more optimistic $450 billion or thereabouts. So, a 60-to-80-fold exaggeration by the great gibberer.

It is reasonably safe to assume that the entirety of the economic data he cited is similarly accurate. I do not deny that the U.S. economy is holding up well, with growth greater than the rest of the G7 and inflation and unemployment roughly in line with them. But the longer Trump is in office, the harder it is to get reliable data, as is the case with, for example, rogue states. Just saying!

Once he finished self-fellating himself over his prodigious growth, etc. for half an hour or so, he turned his attention to destroying the NATO alliance and what is left of the special relationship between the USA and Europe.

You will all know about his naked colonialist intent towards Greenland (or was it Iceland?) along with Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Mexico, Cuba and Canada, but again I feel compelled to clarify a couple of points that may have escaped you regarding his ridiculous suggestion that the U.S. was ‘stupid’ (one of his favourite words) for handing it back to Denmark after WW2.

“We gave Greenland back to Denmark after World II – how stupid were we?”

Firstly, Greenland has been a Danish sovereign territory since 1721, a full 55 years before the U.S.A. Declaration of Independence. In other words, throughout the history of the U.S.A. Greenland has always been Danish. His assertion that just because some Danes landed a ship on it 500 years ago doesn’t give them the right to own it has to be one of the greatest self-owns in history. His lack of self-awareness is staggering.

Secondly, during WW2, once Denmark was invaded and occupied by Germany, the U.S. struck a defence agreement with the Danish ambassador in Washington that allowed the U.S. to station troops and establish military bases and airfields etc. to protect it from potential German control. This had obvious mutual benefits to all parties.

This agreement was ratified and extended post-war and was renegotiated in 1951 in line with Cold War strategic concerns. The U.S. presence peaked in the 1960s, when there were tens of thousands of personnel scattered around dozens of installations; 10,000 at the Thule Air Base alone at one time. The numbers dwindled after the end of the Cold War because the U.S. decided to withdraw them. Today, only the Pituffik Space Base with a couple of hundred personnel remains. There appears to be no issue with re-instating the U.S. presence to at least its 1960s peak levels.

So, just like most of his bluster about ‘peace’ and ‘security’, you always have to look for the money-making opportunity with Trump. His eyes light up at getting his hands on Gaza, for example, so he can fund its redevelopment and profit from his vision. Hot off the press today, presented by son-in-law Jared Kushner, this!

Just like his Venezuela coup, installing himself as de-facto President, is patently all about stealing oil, Greenland is all about stealing valuable mineral resources. Fuck the Venezuelan people (he’s working with Maduro’s henchmen after all, so it was never about regime change or democracy) and fuck the Greenlanders, a miserable bunch of 50,000 losers in Trump’s eyes.

He may have backed down for the moment, after the rest of NATO finally reined him in and pointed out that his security concerns can easily be addressed by re-instating U.S. bases and presence around Greenland. They’ve called his bluff on this one, so he is having to retreat momentarily while he finds a new angle of attack.

That angle could well be withdrawing U.S. from NATO altogether, before invading it and seizing Greenland militarily. Personally, I say bring it on. I have campaigned for the dissolution of NATO for many a year.

NATO was set up in 1949, at the behest of Clement Attlee’s Labour government, as a way of aligning the efforts of the US and the western European powers at the start of the cold war. In reality it was always a means to ensure US dominance of Europe. It served a number of complementary purposes for the big winner of the second world war. In the words of the British Lord Ismay, its first secretary-general, it was a means “to keep Russia out, the Americans in and Germany down.” Global geopolitics look very different today than they did in 1949.

Russia may have a dangerous sociopathic leader, but it is no longer, if it ever was, an economic powerhouse. It’s economic output (GDP) is only the 9th biggest in the world, less than Germany, U.K., France and Italy, and less than corporations like Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft and Google. It cannot tolerate NATO at its borders only because that brings a malevolent U.S.A. to its borders. Kick NATO into touch and get rid of Putin and the Russian people would love to reap the benefits to living standards seen in the old soviet bloc countries that are now in the E.U. and prospering.

Germany is no longer the pariah state of Europe but the glue that sticks it together. I trust and respect Germany and Germans a lot more than I trust the U.S.A. and Americans.

It is the U.S.A. that has all the hallmarks of a rogue state these days. A “rogue state” is generally understood as one that regularly breaks international rules, destabilises others, represses its own population and media, and resists global accountability. Tell me that this isn’t the U.S.A. today.

Furthermore, don’t let Trump’s absurd rhetoric fool you into thinking it is only American money that funds NATO and ‘protects’ Europe. It is barely the biggest contributor to the NATO budget, despite Trump bleating that the US pays too much, gets little in return and that Europe doesn’t pull its weight. All total nonsense as the data below shows:

If we were to remove the U.S. contribution of €521million and share that out between the remaining population of 639 million people, if works out at €0.80 per person extra. The fact of the matter is that only Turks, Bulgarians and North Macedonians pay less than Americans per head towards the NATO budget.

And would we need this much of a budget if we weren’t supporting U.S. led conflicts all over the planet, especially if the threat from Russia was removed? I don’t think so. NATO has evolved from a defence pact to an imperialist war machine, as Sweta Choudhury eloquently portrays in her article “We need to talk about Nato: an imperialist war machine” in 2019.

This is a key point: Trump may have brought these issues to a head this week, but they are nothing new. The problem isn’t Trump. The problem is the U.S.A. I came across this from a Danish economist,  Lars Christensen, this week:

“The problem isn’t Trump. The problem is the U.S. When the outside world observes Trump’s insane behavior and his threats against allies, and we at the same time observe that there is no real action from the U.S. public, Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, or the U.S. media about this insanity, we will all have to conclude that the U.S. accepts this behavior.”

They voted him twice, FFS! They have taken no meaningful steps to remove him. Before re-electing him, he was found guilty/liable in court of (a) 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business accounts to cover-up hush money paid to Stormy Daniels, (b) sexual assault and defamation of his victim, along with various cases of sexual impropriety, defamation, business malpractice and anti-SLAPP lawsuits that have either been settled out of court or are still mired in the system (probably indefinitely). And who knows what is still lurking in those Epstein files. You are or become what you elect and tolerate. How many times have I invoked the quote: “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing”?   

So, it is well beyond the time when we should have disbanded NATO and distanced ourselves from the U.S.A. Their influence across Europe (the world even), in the last few decades especially, has been mostly negative. They have led us in the wrong direction not just militarily (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine) but economically (rampant capitalism allied to protectionism), environmentally (‘drill baby drill’) and socio-politically (fuelling the rise of fascistic right-wing populism around the globe).

We don’t need them. They are a menace. Get lost Trump. Get lost U.S.A.

Just to underline what Trump is all about, we had the launch of his shabby cabal of petro-states and dodgy governments this week in Davos:

  • Trump has extended invitations to dozens of nations, hinting at a future role as a wider conflict mediator, akin to a pseudo-UN Security Council.
  • Countries joining the board: Argentina, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Mongolia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.
  • Countries that have been invited but remain noncommittal: Cambodia, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, The European Union’s executive arm, Paraguay, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Ukraine.
  • Countries that will not join the board, for now: France, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, UK (a rare piece of backbone from Starmer).

The ulterior motives of this initiative are barely disguised. The first goal was Trump’s real estate venture in Gaza that I’ve already highlighted. Those first signatories all clearly see an opportunity to suck up to Trump and will no doubt hope to gain contracts for other ventures or some other favours.

Trump is the self-appointed chair for life of this club with a membership fee of a cool $1 billion. I wonder who has stumped that up so far. That it is ‘Trump/U.S.-centric’ is emphasised by its awfully tacky logo:

It is not remotely global. In fact, it brought to mind this map of Trump’s imagined empire doing the rounds recently:

Trump said, in Davos: “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do, and we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations.” He also hinted the board could eventually make the UN “obsolete.” The UN is far from perfect but given the choice of it or this abomination …. !!!

In conclusion, I am hoping that this week’s events in Davos will prove to be a watershed moment in the history of international relations, with the U.S.A. finally reaping what it has sown over many decades. It has all culminated in the monstrous farce embodied in the ludicrous form of the most dangerous clown to walk the Earth. The emperor’s new clothes have finally, it seems, been seen for what they are: nothing but grotesque.

What to make of the proposed Ukraine peace deal.

Leave a reply

The first point to make is that this deal is a carve up between Trump and Putin. It puts Ukraine in an invidious position and makes it hard to accept for its failure to include Ukraine in the negotiations.

With Trump threatening to hang Ukraine out to dry if it doesn’t accept the deal by Thanksgiving (perverse as that is, but what should we expect from a pervert), it is no wonder that Zelensky and European leaders are in a spin.

As details emerge of this deal, we can see Trump’s fingerprints all over it. The key points appear to be:

  • Territorial concessions: Ukraine would formally recognise Russian control of Crimea and the occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, while Russia would retain de‑facto authority over those regions.
  • NATO status: Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO, though it would receive “unspecified security guarantees” from the West.
  • Sanctions and economic ties: Existing sanctions on Russia would be lifted, and the United States would resume cooperation with Russia on energy and other industrial sectors.
  • Energy arrangement: The United States would take operational control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and supply electricity to both Ukraine and Russia.
  • Security guarantees: Western countries would provide security assurances to Ukraine despite the loss of NATO membership, aiming to prevent further aggression.
  • Frozen Russian assets: These assets are to be used to help rebuild Ukraine, with the USA overseeing this and taking 50% of any profits made.

This smacks of the same sort of approach as Trump has exhibited towards Gaza. It takes no account of the views of the innocent civilians living in the areas being carved up. It treats the areas as little more than real estate and business opportunities, driven as ever by the greed and profit-motive that seems to be the only thing that motivates Trump to get involved in anything.

Of course, the citizens of Ukraine and Russia will naturally be relieved at the end of a war that has had such dire consequences in terms of loss of lives and damage to property, but it seems they will get very little from this deal.

The causalities to date are truly horrific. I have seen estimates ranging from 800,000 to 1 million dead on the Russian side, with 400,000 to 700,000 dead on the Ukraine side. There are tens of thousands missing and unaccounted for too. Add to this the injuries and long-term disabilities, the displacement of people from their homes leading to a mass exodus of refugees mostly into EU countries and the mental health impacts of all this and conscription, and the human costs are staggering.

And then there is the huge damage to infrastructure, homes, and the environment to consider. And all for what? Answers on a postcard please! It is easy to understand why the majority of Ukrainian and Russian civilians want a negotiated peace desperately.

But Starmer and the EU leaders are opposed. The official line is that this is because they are concerned for the Ukrainian people who should be involved in negotiations and who can’t be allowed to have sacrificed so much in vain. It is nothing to do with (officially) the massive rearmament programme and the convenient excuse to increase military spending while continuing to inflict austerity on their people. European leaders are now committed to getting themselves on a war footing and to continuing the expansion and strengthening of NATO. Ukraine is now the victim of a proxy war between Western Europe and Russia, to all intents and purposes. And Trump is lapping up all involved sucking up to him, metaphorically fellating him even, as he relishes effectively franchising out USA military operations in Europe while extracting great economic and political leverage. If he is to keep USA committed to NATO, it is going to be on his extortionate terms. Otherwise, he’s quite willing and capable of standing by as Europe crashes and burns.

Thus, for the time being at least, it is in the interests of Zelensky, the EU leaders and Starmer to keep the war going. Zelensky is in deep shit when the conflict ends. He has been haemorrhaging popularity across the country and faces a huge corruption scandal. He needs to win the war to survive and can only do that with NATO backing. The European members of NATO are more than happy to provide assistance and weaponry but are rightly wary of allowing it to escalate into full-blown war between them and Russia, mainly for fear of near inevitable nuclear escalation.

Things have reached something of a stalemate and Trump, ever the opportunist, sees now as a time to force the hands of Zelensky and Putin. That it will likely look similar to the terms on the table four years, rendering the immense losses since pointless, is just another layer of tragedy.

There had been violent conflict over the Donbas for years, with legitimate concerns in the Russian speaking population over rights and language. Russian long-standing opposition to the expansion of NATO was never properly acknowledged either. There is no evidence that NATO poses any sort of existential threat to Russia, but independent analyses (e.g., the Quincy Institute) note that NATO’s combined conventional forces, especially airpower and advanced missile systems, far exceed Russia’s current operational capacity. In a hypothetical full‑scale NATO‑Russia war, Russia would likely suffer decisive losses, which underpins its “existential” rhetoric. But it also underlines the USA’s critical role in determining the balance of power. Trump seems intent on maximising the leverage this gives him on both sides for his own benefit and what he perceives as the USA’s benefit.

Zelenskyy addressed the nation, saying Ukraine was faced with a choice of “losing our dignity or the risk of losing our key partner”. He spoke of an extremely difficult week ahead, and of unbearable pressure being put on Kyiv.

Trump, for his part, is in a hurry, reportedly keen to get a deal done before Thanksgiving next Thursday, and perhaps with one eye on the “Fifa peace prize”, apparently created solely as a gift to his ego, which he is expected to be given at the World Cup draw in Washington DC on 5 December.

As the Grauniad’s Shaun Walker put it a few days ago:

“For all the public bravado, there has been a private admission in some parts of the Ukrainian elite that a deal may need to be done sooner rather than later, even if everyone sees Moscow as a bad-faith negotiating partner.”

Thus, this may well prove to be Trump’s crowning achievement, not that he has any interest in the suffering born by the people on the ground or their futures ahead. Given that the region is now awash with weaponry, real long-lasting peace is highly unlikely. And given that the tensions and paranoia across Europe have been cranked up so high, we will continue to welfare budgets sacrificed for warfare spending.

As ever, it is the military-industrial complex and its doyens that are the only ones to gain anything from such conflicts.