February 20, 2025 - 1:00pm
The Trump administration has made a startling turn in the past few weeks on its foreign policy, particularly on Russia, Ukraine and Europe. American officials met with their Russian counterparts in Riyadh to begin talks toward a settlement of the war in Ukraine while signalling a willingness to repair relations with Moscow in the future. Trump, meanwhile, blamed Ukraine for starting the war and went out of his way to insult President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” and, perhaps worse, a “moderately successful comedian”.
This is fairly galling given that it was in the United States’ power to avoid the war in the first place by retracting its pledge to bring Ukraine into Nato. Instead, Washington opted to use Kyiv as a cat’s paw to bleed Russia, and refused to push for a settlement earlier, which would have saved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. The first Trump administration itself set Russia and the West on a collision course by sending weapons to Ukraine after the Obama administration refused, and by leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019.
What is frustrating about the recent actions of the Trump administration is that, from a realist perspective, the initial moves it has made have been promising. Unfortunately, all these events have been complicated — or even contradicted — by the President’s crude and incoherent approach, which unnecessarily threatens to sour America’s long-term relations with Europe.
Take, for instance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s comments in Brussels last week, in which he said explicitly that neither Nato membership nor US security guarantees for Ukraine would be a part of a settlement of the conflict, and that Europe would have to bear the primary burden for its own conventional defence.
Hegseth’s initial statements were the right mix of firmness and friendship towards Europe, telling the allies that it’s time to move out of their parents’ basement. The next day, however, Hegseth walked back his statement, saying that Nato membership was not off the table. At the Munich Security Conference last Friday, Vice President JD Vance reiterated that Europe would have to become more independent but then, seeming to contradict this sentiment, proceeded to lecture European governments on their own domestic politics. Vance threatened Russia with sanctions and military action if they refused to negotiate while, along with other administration officials, also demanding half of Ukraine’s mineral wealth as compensation for US military aid throughout the war.
European leaders responded to recent events by holding an emergency conference in Paris this week, acknowledging that the United States no longer appears to be a reliable underwriter of European security. The Trump administration had already strained relations with Europe by threatening to annex Greenland from Denmark, prompting European members of Nato to even consider sending troops to the northern territory.
America’s exit from Nato and ending the Ukraine war are both long overdue. Threatening Europeans and trashing transatlantic relations on our way out the door is entirely counterproductive, however. Europe accounts for more than $1 trillion in annual goods trade with the US, and a friendly and stable Europe allows Washington to focus its attention across the Pacific. Washington’s relatively benign hegemony in Europe previously dissuaded the continent from balancing against Washington. Should Brussels instead regard the United States as hostile, say due to US threats to annex sovereign Danish territory, they will have both economic and political incentives to hedge their bets by seeking closer alignment with China.
This might include, for example, breaking US-imposed restrictions on the export of advanced semiconductor-manufacturing technology to China by the Dutch company ASML, which has a monopoly on cutting-edge “extreme ultraviolet” photolithography machines. It may, in time, even include greater security cooperation, something Washington surely wants to avoid.
Realism is a theory of how states are constrained by the realities of power and the imperative for survival, not a prescription for making exploitation and predation into a virtue. In a complex world, moral imperatives often contradict; one must therefore prioritise some ends at the expense of others. The fact that within a month of taking office, the Trump administration has repeatedly couched its objectives towards Canada, Mexico, Gaza, Greenland, and Ukraine in pecuniary or imperialistic terms is alarming.
The United States can leave Europe the easy way; it doesn’t need to leave the hard — or the stupid — way.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeForeign Policy Realism exists as a thinly veiled excuse to justify violence and greed, and its consequences are inevitably catastrophic. I hope if Trump is indeed perusing a ‘Realist’ approach here that it crashes and burns. That way we’d all be better off.
The US has no attention span nor loyalty to friends. Sooner Europe realizes that and acts accordingly the better.
European leaders responded to recent events by holding an emergency conference in Paris this week, acknowledging that the United States no longer appears to be a reliable underwriter of European security.
How is America being unreliable here? We’ve known for the longest time that they wanted Europe to be more self-sufficient and we chose to ignore that. To now turn around and act the victim is just so ridiculous.
Watching these events unfold, it’s our European elites who I most fear. Trump might be crude but he seems to have a better grasp of the situation and of what he wants – even if that isn’t communicated well (and that might well be the intention).
The Europeans are flailing, can’t get their head around the situation they’ve got themselves into, are just lashing out when they are plainly incapable of dealing with the consequences of the people they are insulting really hitting back. Because Trump could do much worse right now and stable Transatlantic relations are more in our interests right now than in his. Also, DT is interested in stopping the war and the killing whereas the Europeans seem anxious to prolong it without any hope of achieving a better outcome. It’s overestimation on a suicidal level.
We really would be best served now by letting Trump do his thing (we have no power to influence this) and quitting the habit of a postwar lifetime, i.e. talking big but not being able to back it up with any action.
Stable transatlantic relations are not on offer, unfortunately.
As for the war, it was always easy enough to stop the war by surrendering to all Putin’s demands. The Ukrainians thought that avoiding that was worth a war. Trump surely does not give a damn about dead Ukrainians, but of course he wants to make a deal when it means he can get a lot of cash for selling someone else’s property.
You seem surprisingly eager to see Europe accepting a position as an American colony, with Trump to determine who we trade with (and at what prices) and Musk to determine how we run our elections. I shall refrain from speculating about your motives. Let me just suggest that at a minimum Europe can make the choice whether we would rather submit to Trump, Putin, or Xi. If you have to get screwed at least it helps if you can decide who gets to do the screwing.
I just heard Europeans got guarantees for all the money they have given to the Ukraine and the Americans didn’t. I also heard that Zelenskyy has admitted he doesn’t know where half of the money has went.
You “just heard”?
Where did you hear that, Jimbo? Some Russian bots on Facebook I imagine. Or do you have some super secret sources in the Ukrainian hierarchy who are feeding you top level intelligence because you are just so critical to the war effort?
Hmm. I think we all know which it is, don’t we?
What I’m eager for is for our leaders to get a grip and not make things far worse than they are by failing to understand that we are basically the beggars in this situation and not the choosers. It is not a failure to admit that.
I am also eager for the realisation to kick in that idealistic moral positions are something you have to be able to afford. From the Green Deal to insane immigration to Ukraine: Europe is killing itself with its own ideals. (And I think I mean Western Europe there – the Eastern Europeans aren’t such dreamers.)
Ukraine is not an idealistic moral position, but advanced defence against Russia. Just like the Green Deal is advanced defence against a climate catastrophe. It may well be that we shall have to give up and resign ourselves to future Russian invasions and climate disasters, but at least it was worth a try.
I’m afraid Ukraine, or at least its sovereignty, is very much a moral position which the Europeans thought they could afford, no, sorry – thought America would happily pay through the nose for so we could maintain our virtue. And we rushed into it with high ideals and principles and “no surrender!” And I got caught up in that too initially because as Europeans we had grown up learning the script of America and its allies always winning and being willing and able to go in and win – against the Nazis, against the Soviet Union. (Let’s conveniently forget about disasters like Vietnam, that wasn’t our backyard…)
Ukraine is the alarm bell for a new geopolitical era where the US isnt6all powerful and the script is different. Europeans are on stage and haven’t bothered to learn their lines so they are shouting out the old ones and looking very stupid indeed.
Sorry, but no. In Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, Syria we had the option to say “We cannot really do anything effective so we do less damage by staying out and leaving them to it. Anyway it does not really concern us.“In Ukraine the question is of Russia reconquering its old empire. First it takes Ukraine. Next in the firing line are the Baltic states. Next it depends on what looks feasible, maybe grabbing Poland or Finland, maybe just putting all the EU countries under pressure. Who knows? But for sure Russia was not going to stop until there was enough pushback to make it pause. Anyway, back when there was a NATO it was an unavoidable question for Europe AND the US at what point we, together, were going to push back, and how. Now Trump is dumping us and allying with Putin instead we have to face the question alone. But one way or the other we never had the luxury of leaving Russia to do as it wished and pretending it was none of our business.
A spoof Intourist poster back when the USSR was in Afghanistan said: “Visit the Soviet Union, before the Soviet Union visits you!” It is called Russia now, but the question is still the same. We may not be doing it very well – unsurprising since we are up the creek and Trump just left with all the paddles – but whatever this is it is not pure idealism that caused it, and it was US/NATO, not just Europe, that set the Russia policy that brought us here.
Do you know what appeasement is, Kitty Kat?
Is this your idea of a sparkling riposte? I fear the champagne’s lost its fizz.
Nice work putting the cork back in. Unfortunately our limply effervescent chum will keep on no matter how stale his emissions.
Is it realistic to think the Russians would attempt to invade Europe proper though? Was it realistic to believe people would accept diminished living standards to prevent climate change? To me, the former is laughable, especially now that we’ve seen the extent of Russian military capability. The latter was an understandable appeal to mankind’s better nature. I knew it was/is going to fail, but I don’t expect it would be good if most people were as cynical as myself, so I tend to accept the attempt as necessary for the sake of establishing the real boundaries of what’s politically possible.
Well Putin would not invade any country that was sufficiently obedient (he has not invaded Belarus, for instance), but apart form that, why not? What would prevent him? We know from his pre-war ultimatum that he wants NATO pushed back to the pre-1989 borders, which means that anything east of that line is owned by Russia and can be invaded at will. That covers the Baltic states, Poland and a number of other EU countries. Do you count them as being ‘Europe proper’? Once he had that, why not take more, if he could get away with it? There is the loss of East Germany to make up for, control of the entrance to the Baltic, lots of nice industry to grab (as Trump, too, has noticed). I am assuming that he will keep expanding until there is enough pushback that the risk becomes too great – is that not a realistic worldview? The question is who provides the pushback, and where.
Yes, because all politicians should always be taken literally. I guess that goes some way to explaining your poor grasp on reality.
Perhaps. That is reasonable, but reasonable minds can differ as to strategic assessments of what is difficult and one can read the political tea leaves to gain clues as to what the limits of Putin’s ambition might be or at least what he deems is strategically feasible. I think he really would like to get back all of Ukraine, but specifically the entire Black Sea coast. Odessa has significant historic and symbolic value in Russian history. He probably has his eye on the Transnistria and possibly all of Moldova and I don’t doubt he would like to cultivate more sympathetic governments and politicians in Eastern Europe, like Orban. In that respect, he may actually share common cause with Trump for a limited duration. They have a mutual dislike for the old neoliberal order and a mutual cause in pushing internationalism into the dustbin of history. Trump knows his real enemy is China anyway and not Russia. It’s possible he’s even trying to reverse Nixon’s strategy of dividing the Soviets and the Chinese during the last Cold War, in this case reconciling with Russia to isolate China. This would have the added benefit of eliminating a point of tension with India, who has a history of friendly relations with Russia and is arguably the most important emerging power and one with a natural regional rivalry with China. When interests change, geopolitical alliances can change as well. China’s rise has disrupted the old system of natural allies and opponents. That old order is now untenable to multiple parties, but it will take time to sort out what the new normal looks like and I doubt Trump will be the end of the process. At any rate, I have a very different view as to the limit of Putin’s ambition, and the Ukraine conflict has shown the limits of Russia’s capability as well. I don’t see Putin as likely to go beyond what he’s already got given what he has had to spend in blood and treasure just to get this for. This isn’t like surrendering the Sudetenland without a shot fired. Shots have already been fired and several hundred thousand lives lost, and it won’t be easy for Russia to replace them. They’re already importing troops from North Korea. It’s just not the same situation.
I wish I believed you – but then I once believed that the US would help keep Russia back because it had shared values and interests with Europe. Wishful thinking is not a good thing. And Putin’s calculations will surely change now he knows that the US is his friend – or at least not going to oppose his aims.
Just for fun: On your analysis it is then actually the Ukrainians and their fighting who convinced Putin to stop expanding further (if he did indeed so change his mind)? Which would mean that encouraging Ukraine to fight and helping them kill Russians was a wise and important move by the West?
Before any Trumpists complain: I do realise that it was the Ukrainians who paid the price and we who reap the benefits. But it was their choice to fight back rather than meekly surrender to Putin. You can hardly blame us for helping them do what they wanted to do.
I do not blame them. The Ukrainians are the victims of great power competition. There have been others before and there will be others after. They should never have been in the middle of this. Neither Putin nor Trump nor even Biden really considered Ukraine and its people as much more than a piece on a geopolitical chess board. I suspect the Europeans do have a more altruistic interest in helping the Ukrainians, and they simply lack the ability to provide much help with the American military industrial complex. If they were willing to foot the bill, I’m sure the American weapons makers would gladly keep churning out the weapons, but Europe is in a weaker economic position than the US is, partly because of that conflict, which America arguably contributed to starting in the first place. I tend to believe that Europeans are more idealistic in general than Americans because of Europe’s longer and deeper history. The stereotype of the fat, angry, flag waving American is, like most stereotypes, partly based on real observations. It’s also true that Americans will turn around and burn the same flags if the government does things they don’t approve of with equal zeal. You’ll not hear me arguing that Americans are less greedy, less violent, or more compassionate than Europeans. Quite the opposite, but we must live in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. In hindsight, it was unwise to place so much faith on the people of any one country, but particularly one with the isolationist traditions and rebellious spirit of the USA.
Europe has been an American colony since at least the start of the war (though many would put it much earlier), when we foolishly followed the Biden regime into this nonsensical quagmire (let’s not pretend he was present and directing this most of the time).
This wasn’t Europe’s fight and people like you were all in on it though we were never going to win, were always going to end up cleaning up & paying for this mess (as we have for most of the middle eastern adventures) and it wasn’t even going to bring us anything if we had somehow won (which would never happen, because nukes) – the American corporations already had deals to buy up the land, the industry and the mineral rights under Biden.
Zelensky literally made a promotional video for Blackrock to come mop up everything they’d privatized under American pressure (what you presumably call “democratic freedom reforms” or somesuch garbage) and Trump is just making good on that promise.
Now, this holier than thou attitude with regards to property is hilarious and/or monstrous if you’d consider that YOU are ACTUALLY just advocating for the further needless slaughter of Ukrainians and it really strikes me like something from a parallel dimension (the guardians world perhaps), but you are either brainwashed or dishonest if you believe half the stuff you write.
There is even a Gallup Poll out from November stating over 50% of Ukrainians want the war to end, so who are you to talk exactly?
If you actually stand behind your words (that we’ll fight the Russians sooner or later), put your money where your mouth is – Zelenskys sinking ship could use more volunteers who believe in their righteous democratic cause, why not help out?
Also, Musk and Vance at least claim to want us to have fair elections, the EU has been going around cancelling/couping those with results it doesn’t like (Romania, Georgia) and generally interfering wherever they can (Hungary, Poland, Moldova, etc.)
Your position is both realistic and valid. It will be up to the EU to decide to either do the hard work of building up it’s own military capabilities and industrial base or take the easy way out and just pick which evil empire to bow to, because there are no good guys in geopolitics, no benevolent empires, and no international cooperation without benefit for both sides. That was the fantasy we all need to put behind us. What Trump is offering is fairly simple. He’s willing to keep the transatlantic alliance going IF Europe will start paying the bills, however that is accomplished. I’m sure Chairman Xi and Tsar Vladimir will have different demands, but it’s naive to believe there won’t be strings attached to those things also. Xi will likely want to censor media, appropriate whatever technology is developed, and use debt traps to control the economics of client states. Putin will probably want to reacquire the territory of the former Soviet Union and spread influence in Eastern Europe the way Western Europe and the US have spread their influence right up to his doorstep. I concede these are all terrible, and I don’t envy the European position, but these are the choices. It is what it is.
Absolutely, very realistic evaluation.
Only I am not sure Trump is actually offering ‘to keep the Atlantic alliance going’. Quite as likely he will carve up the continent – so that Putin gets what he wants anyway – grab Greenland, and treat Europe as a colony. Trade policy will be set to make factories move to the US and to extract maximum money to the US, and Musk with X and his money will make sure that his political friends get to govern. And if he gets sufficiently insulted – or if Putin gives him a good offer – he will hand whatever country over anyway for short-term cash.
I can’t rightly say what’s going on in Trump’s mind, nor can I blame the Europeans for feeling justifiably incensed by his comments. I used to think he was a bumbling fool stumbling around not knowing what he was doing. I believe I underestimated him. I now think his first administration can be explained by a combination of him not expecting to actually win, and then being undermined by McConnell and the old guard Republicans. This time he’s acting much more purposefully and decisively. I am admitting that I am now out of my depth. I can’t say exactly what Trump’s master plan is. My best guess is that he’s doing what worked for him in the campaign, that is tailoring his message and putting it out directly to the people, bypassing media gatekeepers, bureaucrats, and elites. He wants the European people to be angry, angry at him but more importantly angry at their own governments for the internationalist outlook that is clearly coming back to bite them. He may be simply trying to get rid of the remaining globalist establishment parties in Europe by inflaming tensions. Perversely, he stands to benefit because inflaming anger and nationalist sentiment against his own country is just as useful in getting rid of globalists like Trudeau, Macron, Schulz, and Starmer as nationalism directed at anyone else. He can’t make Chairman Xi do any more than he already has to antagonize the rest of the world, but he can do the antagonizing himself, and thus further undermine any pretense to global unity or a set of rules that isn’t subject to the control of national governments, and in the US, that means the will of the people, right or wrong. Nationalist governments are less likely to bow to the EU bureaucrats, who he may see as his real enemies. He may indeed be seeking to break up the EU as it will result in smaller nations that will be more easily played off against one another. He’s destroying globalism, which was going to happen anyway regardless of who was in power, because it’s a bad philosophy that ignores human tribalism. Trump’s method’s are… unorthodox… and less elegant than I would prefer, but I didn’t win the election, and nobody who favored my sort of approach was even in the race.
Over here, the narrative that’s playing is how JD Vance was criticized for meeting with the AfD and being jeered by the German government for meeting with a ‘radical’ ‘far-right party’. It makes Germany look like a nation telling their people what is and isn’t acceptable to vote for, which is not how Americans define ‘democracy’. I’ll hazard a guess that Trump would rather deal with the AfD than with the remaining holdouts of the old globalist order.
Good analysis, as always. Split up Europe so you can exploit them one by one, and install a bunch of sycophants in their governments who will help you. Much like Vichy France reacted to losing in 1940 by aping and sucking up to the invaders. Which makes such people not only fools but traitors, in my book.
Myself I will quote C.S.Lewis: “I may be coward enough to fear force, but I am not coward enough to admire it.”
Funny that, What I concluded from that story is that the people enjoying the approval of Vance and Musk are not just making a democratic choice that I may or may not agree with. Rather they are signing up to the national ideology of a hostile, foreign power, much like the blackshirts of the thirties or the communists of the fifties. Back then, too, the sponsor countries were upset at the lack of support their fellow ideologues enjoyed abroad.
After the USA spending so long promoting European integration the European countries haven’t got a clue what to do with it. All those decades of peace in Europe have dulled the appreciation of what it took at Yalta to create the foundation of it.
After the endless wars of the centrists, the prospect, however tentative, of peace breaking out is seen as a threat. UK politicians of all parties and retired generals offering up conscription of ‘unengaged youth’ is a withdrawal symptom. Conscription to treat the addiction.
One might think that women Labour MPs especially would be concerned about the safety of women conscripted into the army being bullied by drill sergeants and harassed by lecherous soldiery.
Even so, de Gaulle was never convinced of the reliability of the USA. After Trump has brought the eastward expansion of NATO to an end, Labour might have to send the conscripts to Panama.
Don’t worry – they will have enough to do defending against further Russian expansion.
I don’t get Trump at all. He seems determined to piss off all his allies. I wish he would STFU sometimes. He appears to be throwing Zelenskyy under the bus, when it was the Biden administration that created the mess in Ukraine. However, the author doesn’t need to exaggerate to make this point. Trump isn’t threatening to annex Greenland etc.
Trump is threatening to annex Greenland (etc.). He said to quite clearly, and anyway it would fit perfectly well with his ‘give me all your mineral wealth’ approach to Ukraine. . We keep getting blamed for not listening when Trump announced his objective some years ago; it is a bit too much also to get blamed for believing what the man says.
You may think that you know what Trump really means, but no one else does. Why is your opinion more than wishful thinking?
Meh. I can’t stand Trump’s language, but he has talked about buying Greenland. He isn’t invading. That’s silly IMO.
Well, Greenland is not for sale. And Trump has said that the US needs Greeland, that he intends to have it, and that he will not exclude military action. That is enough for me.
He is also threatening to annex Canada and to wreck the Canadian economy if they don’t become the 51st state. Trump supporters can’t get their head around the fact that they elected a nutcase wrecking ball which is on the loose and is only getting going. What an incredible mess this man will leave behind in 4 years, if we survive. Prepare for a freak show without end.
The derangement will subside the day you stop watching MSNBC.
The derangement will continue for at least 4 years, as long as the deranged Trump supporters living in an alternate universe and make believe social media world continue to spew their bs.
“when it was the Biden administration that created the mess in Ukraine”
That’s a novel interpretation of events. I admire your creative reading of the facts Jimbo but I think you’ll find that Trump’s boss (not Musk, the other one) was the one who created the mess in Ukraine,
Anything else you need me straighten out for you?
The author terms as “contradictory” JD Vance putting some plain truths to European commissars, whereas his insistence that they step up to the plate financially and militarily requires them to know what they’re fighting for makes perfect sense.
Vance almost went out of his way to add placatory remarks, couching many of his points in language suggesting the desire to maintain long-standing friendships. Okay, this can be seen as the standard language of high-stakes speech-making but it sounded genuine enough. What Vance (and the US) are seeking isn’t interference, but the kind of independence that would be like the tough love a wise parent might give to a child reluctant to grow up, get a job and start living their own lives.
Europe should threaten to throw the US out of Ramstein and Naples. Then the defense contractors will listen and turn on Trump.
No. Thank the Lord the President has the balls to stand up and speak the truth. The odious puppet Zeee is about to have his supply removed, and the Deep State is fuming.
More Power to MAGA, from the downtrodden UK.
I think in his second administration, Trump has extended the tactics he used against the American media and political establishment against the rest of the world. Almost from day one of his first term, Trump made a point to pick fights with media outlets and say things that were purposefully inflammatory. That wasn’t by accident. For the most part, he never had any intention of going through with the nutty things he put out on Twitter. He does it for the same reason internet trolls post deliberately inflammatory and offensive remarks in comments and such. He says hyperbolic things to provoke equally hyperbolic responses, because he doesn’t play nice, he plays dirty, and he wants everyone playing just as dirty as him. As we say in rural America, if you don’t want to get muddy, don’t jump in the pig sty and wrestle with pigs.
That approach worked on the media because they have no real power to do anything. The legacy media that opposed Trump had already lost a lot of credibility and showed themselves to be exactly what their critics said they were. Foreign governments though, are not like the media. They can actually do things individually and collectively to hurt US interests. Trump is practically daring them to do so. The question is why? I’m not sure what angle he’s playing. Why provoke responses from nations around the world. Is he trying to wreck the global economy and cause a recession by provoking trade wars? I’m not sure what he hopes to accomplish with these provocations, but I’m more hesitant to ascribe it to incompetence or a lack of self-control this go around. The fact that a relatively educated politician like Vance is pushing the envelope as well leads me to believe that Trump must have some kind of plan. I just don’t know exactly what it is. My guess is this is still about getting Europeans to increase their defense spending, which will, in the short term at least, mean buying American weapons, which will mean supporting American industry, which is exactly what Trump wants. The US tried asking nicely to little result. Well, now we’re asking not so nicely, and making vague threats that the US has the President has the Constitutional authority to carry out.
For anyone who is confused, Trump doesn’t have to follow the foreign policy of the previous administration, nor does the Congress. That was a courtesy done by previous administrations from WWII up to 2016 during a time when both parties and most Americans shared a mutual interest in opposing global Communism. Still, there’s nothing binding the US to keep doing that indefinitely. There’s nothing in the Constitution that binds any government institution to a consistent foreign policy. The people’s elected leaders are free to pursue any policy that the American people will support. If the people don’t like the policies being pursued, there’s another election in a couple years. That may be inconvenient for Europeans who have become dependent on the sort of policy consistency that existed in the post-WWII era, but that’s the risk of putting one’s own defense in the hands of foreigners. The question of ‘what happens if the foreigners abandon us’ was simply never asked. It was, to use a famous word correctly, inconceivable that the US would ever consider abandoning NATO. I attribute that to the hubris and irrational optimism of the globalist era. It comes back to what we’ve all been saying for years. National governments have to reassert sovereignty and take responsibility for protecting the interests of their citizens.
“The fact that a relatively educated politician like Vance is pushing the envelope as well leads me to believe that Trump must have some kind of plan. ”
Trump is a moron and he has no plan. You know as well as I do that Vance is an obsequious ass kisser and will defend anything that Trumps says, however ludicrous or dangerous, as will the like of you.
American Hitler indeed…
And please try to be a bit less boring
So now Trump wants $500BN in bribes from Ukraine before he sells them out to his boss in Moscow. And they have to be nice to him too apparently.
Is this the peace deal that you were hoping for, Trump cult members?
Not quite. The war in Ukraine needs to be over, and Europe needs a slap across the face. Mr. McCallion has completely missed the mark in his analysis and the rationale behind it. Too bad, either not up on the issues or a shill hip piece. I hope it is the latter.