Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[jon0844]

What i think needs to happen is this, When the First boots land on Greenland, every American ambassador is called into every Nato Country, and given a note, that says you have 48 hours to remove your forces back to a peacetime level, or you will be required to leave every base on Nato soil, failure to do so, will see your forces surrounded and disarmed

in addition, The Nato countries should terminate Nato, and set up an European defence accord, along with other former Nato members, including Ukraine, Western European forces will then be free to aid Ukrainian forces on the ground to take back their country, and stabilise it,

The US will loose every european base, all arms contracts, lose all diplomatic advantages they have, possible travel bans, and limits on American travel beyond the US. the US economy would likily collapse, especially if countries started to shift debt they held.

It wouldn't surprise me if the plan is to effectively remove US troops from Europe, to aid Russia (although Russia will need some time to built up personnel and rebuild its arms). We could well fall into a trap if we decide to kick the USA out of Europe for doing the very thing intended to get us to take such action.

That said, I think that for now we should perhaps consider the USA as a threat and look at options to become more independent. As said above, the USA is in control of a lot of our equipment so the minute we tell the USA to go forth and multiply, we are at risk.

I mean, we're (UK at least) pretty weak anyway right now. The only comfort being that Russia is weak too.

 

[nw1]

However, invading Greenland will still cause US economic trouble, as a large part of the economy is built on global trust. When that trust goes, the dollar and bond markets will collapse, further driving US inflation, especially if Europe also start sanctioning US companies operating there and China see this as a green light to go for Taiwan. For this reason, one has to wonder why neither US Congress nor US big business have a backbone, considering the US will lose an awful lot more than it gains through such an annexation.

It does seem that much of the US Right is so blinded by their ideology that they cannot understand the consequences of their actions.

I hope the US electorate see this and those US citizens who are not MAGA (and thus beyond hope) annihilate the Republican Party in November. The Republican Party cannot be trusted to behave rationally right now.

 

[martin butler]

It wouldn't surprise me if the plan is to effectively remove US troops from Europe, to aid Russia (although Russia will need some time to built up personnel and rebuild its arms). We could well fall into a trap if we decide to kick the USA out of Europe for doing the very thing intended to get us to take such action.

That said, I think that for now we should perhaps consider the USA as a threat and look at options to become more independent. As said above, the USA is in control of a lot of our equipment so the minute we tell the USA to go forth and multiply, we are at risk.

I mean, we're (UK at least) pretty weak anyway right now. The only comfort being that Russia is weak too.

UK, Poland, Baltic states, Germany all have enough capacity to act as a deterent to Russia, So Kicking out an ally who can't be trusted not to turn on us, will I think be less of a risk, I would argue its going to have to be done anyway, Most of the Armerican kit, will already have an European alternative , much of it already in use, Russia is weak, and we can't allow them a window of opportunity to rebuild,

 

[adc82140]

A problem we have is too much defence kit currently in our possession is US-made and/or has US parts in it, so the US effectively has a kill switch on their use

Not least our so-called "independent" nuclear deterrent. We may design and build the warheads, but the rockets they are delivered on are provided by the US.

 

[najaB]

A problem we have is too much defence kit currently in our possession is US-made and/or has US parts in it, so the US effectively has a kill switch on their use.

The extent to which the USA has a kill switch over weapons we have in our possession is, perhaps, slightly overrated. You can only kill remotely that which you can connect to and, for rather obvious reasons, most weapons systems are deliberately isolated from the Internet (precisely so that China, Russia, etc. can't backdoor their way into triggering said kill switch).

What they do have control over is software updates and replacement munitions. Once a US-made missile is expended, we either have to buy more from them or substitute our own replacement.

 

[Ediswan]

The extent to which the USA has a kill switch over weapons we have in our possession is, perhaps, slightly overrated. You can only kill remotely that which you can connect to and, for rather obvious reasons, most weapons systems are deliberately isolated from the Internet (precisely so that China, Russia, etc. can't backdoor their way into triggering said kill switch).

Remote control of systems is possible without the internet. Range is far more limited of course.

 

[jon0844]

The extent to which the USA has a kill switch over weapons we have in our possession is, perhaps, slightly overrated. You can only kill remotely that which you can connect to and, for rather obvious reasons, most weapons systems are deliberately isolated from the Internet (precisely so that China, Russia, etc. can't backdoor their way into triggering said kill switch).

What they do have control over is software updates and replacement munitions. Once a US-made missile is expended, we either have to buy more from them or substitute our own replacement.

If an email comes from Stephen Miller saying we need to do an urgent firmware upgrade, flag it as spam!

 

[najaB]

Remote control of systems is possible without the internet. Range is far more limited of course.

Again, only if the systems are configured to accept said connection. Which, again, by default they are not. Because, again, doing so would potentially allow your enemy to control them during a war.

 

[ainsworth74]

The extent to which the USA has a kill switch over weapons we have in our possession is, perhaps, slightly overrated. You can only kill remotely that which you can connect to and, for rather obvious reasons, most weapons systems are deliberately isolated from the Internet (precisely so that China, Russia, etc. can't backdoor their way into triggering said kill switch).

What they do have control over is software updates and replacement munitions. Once a US-made missile is expended, we either have to buy more from them or substitute our own replacement.

And spares and maintenance. That's the real issue with US kit now. I'm not particularly worried that Trump or Miller or whoever will order that all our F-35s are magically grounded. More of a worry is that they just stop agreeing to allow Lockheed to provide spares and maintenance support. That won't ground the fleet immediately, but it will do so in fairly short order. It's the same issue with something like Trident. They cannot remotely disable a Trident missile or the warheads therein. They can refuse to provide maintenance support and as basically all maintenance in done in the US eventually the missiles that we do have on hand will either become unusable entirely or will become of unknown reliability. That's the real issue with relying on US weapons at the moment.

 

[Bantamzen]

It wouldn't surprise me if the plan is to effectively remove US troops from Europe, to aid Russia (although Russia will need some time to built up personnel and rebuild its arms). We could well fall into a trap if we decide to kick the USA out of Europe for doing the very thing intended to get us to take such action.

That said, I think that for now we should perhaps consider the USA as a threat and look at options to become more independent. As said above, the USA is in control of a lot of our equipment so the minute we tell the USA to go forth and multiply, we are at risk.

I mean, we're (UK at least) pretty weak anyway right now. The only comfort being that Russia is weak too.

Wait? You think the Trump administration has a plan?

No, no, no, they just wing it every time. When something goes wrong, they u-turn and blame Biden for everything....

 

[jon0844]

Trump blames Biden all the time and waffles on about nonsense but his controllers are following the Project 2025 playbook pretty steadfastly.

He's very much the useful idiot.

 

[Annetts key]

Not least our so-called "independent" nuclear deterrent. We may design and build the warheads, but the rockets they are delivered on are provided by the US.

We (as in the U.K. possibly with some help from France) do know how to build both rocket motors (both solid fuel and liquid fuel systems) and nuclear weapons. Before we bought the first system from the U.S., the U.K. had it's own programme. The issue is not can we, but will we, as in will our government commit the money to fund the required work? Then the remaining problem is the time frame to go from development to a working, operational system.

The extent to which the USA has a kill switch over weapons we have in our possession is, perhaps, slightly overrated. You can only kill remotely that which you can connect to and, for rather obvious reasons, most weapons systems are deliberately isolated from the Internet (precisely so that China, Russia, etc. can't backdoor their way into triggering said kill switch).

What they do have control over is software updates and replacement munitions. Once a US-made missile is expended, we either have to buy more from them or substitute our own replacement.

And spares and maintenance. That's the real issue with US kit now. I'm not particularly worried that Trump or Miller or whoever will order that all our F-35s are magically grounded. More of a worry is that they just stop agreeing to allow Lockheed to provide spares and maintenance support. That won't ground the fleet immediately, but it will do so in fairly short order. It's the same issue with something like Trident. They cannot remotely disable a Trident missile or the warheads therein. They can refuse to provide maintenance support and as basically all maintenance in done in the US eventually the missiles that we do have on hand will either become unusable entirely or will become of unknown reliability. That's the real issue with relying on US weapons at the moment.

There are no significant short term issues. If we are going to tell Trump where to shove it, we ignore any and all inconvenient laws on intellectual property rights and get our scientists, engineers and computer programmers to reverse engineer as much as we can. We can both work out how to carry out the maintenance and then build our own parts and systems. Or adapt the existing systems to take European made weapons / ammo.

The problem is that reverse engineering will take time. Too much time. And then it will also take time to develop and manufacture our own parts and systems.

Again, it really comes down to will our government commit the money to fund the required work?

It's the same question for every government of every country that has bought U.S. made military systems.

For some systems, we may even have to ask the Ukrainians for help

 

[najaB]

More of a worry is that they just stop agreeing to allow Lockheed to provide spares and maintenance support. That won't ground the fleet immediately, but it will do so in fairly short order.

Of course, that goes both ways. F-35 component production is spread out across many suppliers in allied countries, so the USA would also be in the situation where they wouldn't be able to (easily) build any more or repair significant damage.

It's the same issue with something like Trident. They cannot remotely disable a Trident missile or the warheads therein. They can refuse to provide maintenance support and as basically all maintenance in done in the US eventually the missiles that we do have on hand will either become unusable entirely or will become of unknown reliability.

I understand that the missiles are rotated back to the USA on a rolling basis (18 months springs to mind). So if we were cut off from the US suppliers and wanted to maintain the nuclear deterrent we would have at least 18 months to come up with a replacement missile. Difficult, but not impossible - particularly if we cooperated with the French and built a new missile based on the M51.

 

[edwin_m]

Meanwhile Trump grabs the Russian flagged (but maybe not legally Russian, depending who you ask) tanker that they were pursuing from Venezuela, apparently before the promised Russian naval escort managed to rendezvous. He's making a move against Putin for a change.: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2v8ngl14o

The United States says it has seized two tankers linked to Venezuelan oil exports in "back-to-back" operations in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean.

US forces boarded the Russian-flagged Marinera after a pursuit lasting almost two weeks as it travelled through the waters between Iceland and Scotland. The UK Royal Navy gave logistical support by air and sea.

 

[weeklycommuter]

It is reported that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will hold talks with Denmark about Greenland next week.

This appears to be a more serious approach than the statements and social media posts made by President Trump and some of his acolytes.

For all the talk about Greenland not being for sale the future of Greenland is unclear. The people of Greenland appear to aspire to independence but they receive large a large subsidy from Danish taxpayers which they do not want to lose. I also do not know the real views of Danish taxpayers who are paying for this subsidy.

I would therefore not rule out a deal being made which associates Greenland with the USA in some way that provides Greenland with the money to replace the current subsidy from Danish taxpayers.

All this talk of national sovereignty and independence is all very well but in the end people usually vote for what is best for them financially.

Trump actively discussing potentially buying Greenland, White House says

Both Greenland and its owner Denmark have repeatedly stressed the island was not for sale.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump actively discussing potentially buying Greenland, White House says

Patrick Jackson
Published 7 January 2026, 17:14 GMT

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday that he will hold talks with Denmark next week.

Earlier in the day, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Rubio had "ruled out the possibility of an invasion" of Greenland in a phone call with him.

 

[brad465]

It is reported that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will hold talks with Denmark about Greenland next week.

This appears to be a more serious approach than the statements and social media posts made by President Trump and some of his acolytes.

For all the talk about Greenland not being for sale the future of Greenland is unclear. The people of Greenland appear to aspire to independence but they receive large a large subsidy from Danish taxpayers which they do not want to lose. I also do not know the real views of Danish taxpayers who are paying for this subsidy.

I would therefore not rule out a deal being made which associates Greenland with the USA in some way that provides Greenland with the money to replace the current subsidy from Danish taxpayers.

All this talk of national sovereignty and independence is all very well but in the end people usually vote for what is best for them financially.

I've wondered if the best approach for Denmark is to auction it off: China will get involved (Russia also could but Ukraine is bankrupting them) and force Trump to put in massive bids because he desperately wants it. Denmark get any burdens from Greenland off their shoulders along with a giant windfall, and China helps Trump achieve is next and greatest bankruptcy, the US, much faster.

(There is an element of tongue in cheek to this suggestion)

 

[Bayum]

The current US government seem to contradict themselves with Greenland. They say it’s in their national interest for security yet have reduced the numbers of US soldiers based there over the last few years. The concern that Russia is/may be a threat to them but are doing very little to support Ukraine in retaining land taken from them by Russia and are, actually, following in the footsteps of Russia by pushing for making Greenland American.

 

[najaB]

I would therefore not rule out a deal being made which associates Greenland with the USA in some way that provides Greenland with the money to replace the current subsidy from Danish taxpayers.

All this talk of national sovereignty and independence is all very well but in the end people usually vote for what is best for them financially.

My understanding is that in descending order of preference, the majority of Greenland's populace would choose: independence, continuing the association with Denmark, joining the Kingdom of Tarturus, slow death from colorectal cancer, and becoming a US possession.

 

[Annetts key]

About Greenland.

Greenland has been part of Denmark for far longer than the U.S.A. has existed as a country.

During WW2, the U.S. had a large number of military personnel stationed at various bases in Greenland along with their equipment.
The U.S. greatly expanded Thule Air Base in the early 1950s. This base is now known as Pituffik Space Base. The current number of U.S. personnel is at it's lowest level since the 1950s.

If the U.S. military wanted to, they can restore the closed bases and return the number of personnel back to the former numbers under the existing agreements that apply.

This is far from the first time that the U.S.A. has offered to buy Greenland. It first happened not long after the end of WW2. Every single time, the offers from the U.S.A. have been rejected.

So I just do not buy the twaddle from the Trump administration about this being a security issue. It's really about mineral rights and power. As in, Miller wants it as part of a land grab, because "we can".

Edited to add: Note to mods: written before all the other most recent posts about Greenland, hence why no quotes.

 

[Gloster]

If the US thinks that Greenland is so valuable that they are huffing and puffing about taking it by force, which at the very least is the big stick behind negotiations, wouldn’t Denmark want to hold on to it to finally get some payback after years of support? Denmark has had it for years when nobody else really wanted it and now along comes Trump and demands that it is handed over.

And what about the Greenlanders: is anyone going to ask them? At the moment they have the right to demand complete independence from Denmark, but they haven’t taken it, presumably because they know that at present they could not afford the welfare bill on their own. Do they really want to go to a US style welfare system?

 

[Mogster]

UK, Poland, Baltic states, Germany all have enough capacity to act as a deterent to Russia, So Kicking out an ally who can't be trusted not to turn on us, will I think be less of a risk, I would argue its going to have to be done anyway, Most of the Armerican kit, will already have an European alternative , much of it already in use, Russia is weak, and we can't allow them a window of opportunity to rebuild,

I hope that’s the case. If Putin decided to push through the Baltics with a similar force that invaded Ukraine I find it hard to see what would stop them. Russia invaded Ukraine with 200,000 men, 2000 tanks, 10,000 IFVs 1000 artillery pieces etc That’s more than the combined combat ready forces of the UK, France, Italy, Germany…

The defence of Europe from a Russian invasion has always depended on the 100,000 or so rotating deployed US troops and 200,000 30 day reinforcements incoming with heavy weapons suitable for a land war in Eastern Europe. You also have a unified command, control and supply structure within the US force, there’s none of that with a piecemeal European army. You take away those self sustaining 300,000 US troops with their heavy weapons, satellite recon, air support etc and Russia is strolling through the Baltic states. Replacing the US force with European troops will be incredibly expensive and I just don’t feel Europe has the will to divert budgets and make that happen.

 

[edwin_m]

I hope that’s the case. If Putin decided to push through the Baltics with a similar force that invaded Ukraine I find it hard to see what would stop them. Russia invaded Ukraine with 200,000 men, 2000 tanks, 10,000 IFVs 1000 artillery pieces etc That’s more than the combined combat ready forces of the UK, France, Italy, Germany…

The defence of Europe from a Russian invasion has always depended on the 100,000 or so rotating deployed US troops and 200,000 30 day reinforcements incoming with heavy weapons suitable for a land war in Eastern Europe. You also have a unified command, control and supply structure within the US force, there’s none of that with a piecemeal European army. You take away those self sustaining 300,000 US troops with their heavy weapons, satellite recon, air support etc and Russia is strolling through the Baltic states. Replacing the US force with European troops will be incredibly expensive and I just don’t feel Europe has the will to divert budgets and make that happen.

Bringing Ukraine into the mix might change this - Europe's second biggest army and by far the most expert in fighting Russians. Russia would need to keep a lot of troops on wherever the line of control ends up to prevent Ukraine trying to take back their territory if they divert them elsewhere.

 

[Mogster]

Bringing Ukraine into the mix might change this - Europe's second biggest army and by far the most expert in fighting Russians. Russia would need to keep a lot of troops on wherever the line of control ends up to prevent Ukraine trying to take back their territory if they divert them elsewhere.

Yes, and Ukraine will have large numbers of trained men with combat experience, although so will Russia.

 

[brad465]

If the US thinks that Greenland is so valuable that they are huffing and puffing about taking it by force, which at the very least is the big stick behind negotiations, wouldn’t Denmark want to hold on to it to finally get some payback after years of support? Denmark has had it for years when nobody else really wanted it and now along comes Trump and demands that it is handed over.

And what about the Greenlanders: is anyone going to ask them? At the moment they have the right to demand complete independence from Denmark, but they haven’t taken it, presumably because they know that at present they could not afford the welfare bill on their own. Do they really want to go to a US style welfare system?

The population of Greenland is so small that the US could try and bribe its citizens to keep them line. They do something similar in Alaska so the population don't revolt about oil drillers ruining the place (something The Simpsons satirised).

 

[edwin_m]

The population of Greenland is so small that the US could try and bribe its citizens to keep them line. They do something similar in Alaska so the population don't revolt about oil drillers ruining the place (something The Simpsons satirised).

Thinking the US would have to pay enough into a sovereign wealth fund to allow current levels of subsidies (plus inflation) to be paid in perpetuity. And the fund would somehow have to be secured against raiding by current or future administrations.

 

[uglymonkey]

The shooting of the white women (no less) by ICE kinda freaked me out. Truly truly the wild west. What has that country descended into?

 

[DerekC]

The shooting of the white women (no less) by ICE kinda freaked me out. Truly truly the wild west. What has that country descended into?

What's really depressing is the instant descent into political mudslinging by the Administration. No question of an investigation to find out exactly what happened. In their book it seems anyone who demonstrates against them is a left wing revolutionary and doesn't qualify for justice.

 

[uglymonkey]

To quick on the draw, shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Bayum]

I’m finding it really difficult to marry the clip with the officer being injured enough to be hospitalised and, according to Trump, ‘Based on the clip, it is hard to believe he is alive but is recovering in hospital’.

 

[JamesT]

I’m finding it really difficult to marry the clip with the officer being injured enough to be hospitalised and, according to Trump, ‘Based on the clip, it is hard to believe he is alive but is recovering in hospital’.

There are multiple clips from different angles. On some it looks much more like they were hit and bounced off. Of course each side is using the clips that fit their narrative most.
Driving at armed police will get you shot in this country too.