Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[Annetts key]

On the subject of the threat to Greenland, I personally think the U.S.A. needs reminding that the whole point of an alliance like NATO is that multiple countries can work together to form a force far bigger than that of an individual nation. Both in terms of military might and political will.

There are currently 32 NATO member states.

The 32 NATO members are:

• Albania
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Canada
• Croatia
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Hungary
• Iceland
• Italy
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Montenegro
• Netherlands
• North Macedonia
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain
• Sweden
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States

Not all of these member states have a navy or have large ships in their navy.

Between them, they have the following:

Country​	Total ships (vessels)​	Aircraft carriers​	Helicopter carriers​	Cruisers​	Destroyers (or equivalent)​	Frigates​	Corvettes​	Submarines​
USA	465​	11​	​	7​	74​	2​	26​	68​
Sweden	308​	​	​	​	​	​	7​	4​
Finland	264​	​	​	​	​	​	​	​
Italy	196​	2​	​	​	3​	14​	​	8​
Portugal	194​	​	​	​	​	5​	2​	2​
Greece	192​	​	​	​	​	14​	​	8​
Türkiye	182​	​	​	​	​	17​	9​	14​
Spain	152​	1​	​	​	​	11​	​	2​
France	129​	1​	3​	​	11​	5​	​	9​
UK	109​	2​	​	​	6​	7​	​	10​
Canada	73​	​	​	​	​	12​	​	4​
Netherlands	64​	​	​	​	​	6​	​	3​
Poland	62​	​	​	​	​	2​	2​	1​
Germany	61​	​	​	​	​	11​	6​	6​
Denmark	50​	​	​	​	​	9​	​	​
Norway	43​	​	​	​	​	4​	6​	6​
Bulgaria	36​	​	​	​	​	6​	3​	​
Total excluding USA	2115​	6​	3​	​	20​	123​	35​	77​

Notes: All numbers are approximate. Amphibious assault ships, Amphibious transport docks, Dock landing ships, Command Ships and similar ships are not listed, as it’s difficult to compare these across the different navies. Similarly various navies operate missile ships / boats, again it’s difficult to categorise these, so they are not listed. Smaller ships and vessels are not listed. Support ships are also not listed.
Note further that apparently the Canadian navy has a personnel issue, with only about half the ships being fully crewed.

Not all ships will be available at any one time, due to undergoing maintenance or for a refit, for crew training or other reasons.

While it is very clear that the U.S. Navy is by far the biggest, if many of the other countries work together, a reasonable naval force could be assembled. For example, if the countries with say destroyers, frigates and corvettes each contributed just one ship, plus say some of the others added at least one aircraft carrier and some submarines, it would certainly result in a reasonable naval force.

This naval force could set sail for Greenland to perform exercises. Just as a reminder to the Americans that just because they have a large powerful military, it does not mean that other countries will just let them do what they like.

By holding the exercises near Greenland, hopefully if enough fuss is made, it will give the Americans something to think about. It would grab the attention of the media. And hopefully enough Republicans will then tell Trump to stop with any ideas about trying to use force to take Greenland.

I see a big risk if nothing is done or if only diplomatic methods are used.

A secondary benefit would be demonstrating to Putin that the other 31 members of NATO are not as weak as he may think, and are not to be messed with.

 

[Sorcerer]

Though when is the last time that the US Navy fought a real battle against a peer opponent (which is what China is)? World War 2? I don't doubt the power and capability of the US Navy but I also don't think it's sensible to assume that the PLAN are likely to be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to experience of real peer on peer combat. Plus the US may have some edge in logistics but then they need to, they've got to cross the entire Pacific. The Chinese will be fighting in their own backyard so weaker logistics isn't a particular problem from their point of view.

I think the reason that the US hasn't fought a real battle against a peer opponent is because there simply hasn't been one (partly by design) and while China is progressing in terms of shipbuilding and manufacturing, something that the US actually does need to keep up with, it's still not quite on the same level because of it's inability to project force outside of the Asia Pacific region (even the UK and France have a limited global reach power-projection) and the fact it's not been properly battle-tested while the US has demonstrated remarkable capability in conventional warfare.

But the main issue is simple industrial capacity. After the first few clashes it's highly likely that the US Navy will have lost ships and will be draining their magazines at a high rate. Who between the two nations has the greater ability to replace lost warships and refill their ships magazines? Last year alone the PLAN commissioned an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship, eight destroyers and six frigates (basically a European navy's worth of shipping). All of those ships were modern designs. The US Navy appears to have managed to commission one littoral combat ship (a class so useless their already being retired even as the last few enter service) in the same time period and continues to build Arleigh Burke class destroyers which can trace their genesis back to the 1980s. Their attempt to commission a new frigate fell apart and who knows when they'll manage to get a new destroyer class under construction (Burkes are going to be being built out into the 2030s).

The US Navy is already smaller than the PLAN and that's a trend that's only going to go one way. No matter how good US Navy ships and sailors are in comparison to their PLAN equivalents (and I think it's dangerous to assume that there is still a huge qualitative difference) eventually quantity has a quality all of its own.

I don't disagree with the need to potentially ramp up industrial capacity for defence since the US is falling behind in some areas such as frigates, but I also wouldn't be surprised if China's military might is largely driven by propaganda since many authoritarian state militaries are designed for politics more than warfare. I don't want to underestimate the capabilities of the Chinese military, but at the same time I think some people overestimate it.

If the US and China go to war anytime soon the US Navy has to hope that they (and the USAF) can somehow deliver a killer blow within the opening few weeks because past that they might struggle to stay in the fight.

I think that depends. Over Taiwan I believe the US would prevail even despite not having the home advantage simply because their logistics are unmatched and have tested naval capabilities, but actually invading the Chinese mainland is another question entirely. But with how it is in today's world, China has more efficient and less costly ways of crippling it's adversaries anyway so I don't think it's really worth questioning how it would turn out.

You assume that there are people behind the scenes who would be upset at that outcome. I'm not convinced that's the case. I reckon there's a fair few people behind Trump who actively want NATO to end.

I think there's a dangerous mix of both, but given how much damage it would do to US hegemony to end NATO and annex Greenland I would hope the sensible voices prevail. What the Trump Administration seems to forget is that much of American global dominance is built on goodwill and friendly relations as well as military might, but hey don't let that stop them trying to claim Europe wouldn't be there for them despite the War on Terror proving otherwise.

 

[EYFanatic]

Country​	Total ships (vessels)​	Aircraft carriers​	Helicopter carriers​	Cruisers​	Destroyers (or equivalent)​	Frigates​	Corvettes​	Submarines​
USA	465​	11​	​	7​	74​	2​	26​	68​
Sweden	308​	​	​	​	​	​	7​	4​
Finland	264​	​	​	​	​	​	​	​
Italy	196​	2​	​	​	3​	14​	​	8​
Portugal	194​	​	​	​	​	5​	2​	2​
Greece	192​	​	​	​	​	14​	​	8​
Türkiye	182​	​	​	​	​	17​	9​	14​
Spain	152​	1​	​	​	​	11​	​	2​
France	129​	1​	3​	​	11​	5​	​	9​
UK	109​	2​	​	​	6​	7​	​	10​
Canada	73​	​	​	​	​	12​	​	4​
Netherlands	64​	​	​	​	​	6​	​	3​
Poland	62​	​	​	​	​	2​	2​	1​
Germany	61​	​	​	​	​	11​	6​	6​
Denmark	50​	​	​	​	​	9​	​	​
Norway	43​	​	​	​	​	4​	6​	6​
Bulgaria	36​	​	​	​	​	6​	3​	​
Total excluding USA	2115​	6​	3​	​	20​	123​	35​	77​

Notes: All numbers are approximate. Amphibious assault ships, Amphibious transport docks, Dock landing ships, Command Ships and similar ships are not listed, as it’s difficult to compare these across the different navies. Similarly various navies operate missile ships / boats, again it’s difficult to categorise these, so they are not listed. Smaller ships and vessels are not listed. Support ships are also not listed.
Note further that apparently the Canadian navy has a personnel issue, with only about half the ships being fully crewed.

Not all ships will be available at any one time, due to undergoing maintenance or for a refit, for crew training or other reasons.

While it is very clear that the U.S. Navy is by far the biggest, if many of the other countries work together, a reasonable naval force could be assembled. For example, if the countries with say destroyers, frigates and corvettes each contributed just one ship, plus say some of the others added at least one aircraft carrier and some submarines, it would certainly result in a reasonable naval force.

This naval force could set sail for Greenland to perform exercises. Just as a reminder to the Americans that just because they have a large powerful military, it does not mean that other countries will just let them do what they like.

By holding the exercises near Greenland, hopefully if enough fuss is made, it will give the Americans something to think about. It would grab the attention of the media. And hopefully enough Republicans will then tell Trump to stop with any ideas about trying to use force to take Greenland.

I see a big risk if nothing is done or if only diplomatic methods are used.

A secondary benefit would be demonstrating to Putin that the other 31 members of NATO are not as weak as he may think, and are not to be messed with.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, on the US carriers - Nimitz is in the process of being deactivated and decommissioned and has no air wing aboard save for a few helicopters for the transit to her home port in the event of man overboard

 

[Strathclyder]

Jeez, Vance has really done it now.

"A tragedy of her own making", he says, seeming to let off the hook the ICE agent who killed her. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...h-was-a-tragedy-of-her-own-making/ar-AA1TOtGC

The only tragic thing here, Vance, you mealy-mouthed weasel, is that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time to be gunned down by bloodthirsty cowardly scum in masks who then ran away cos they knew Daddy Trump and his bootlickers wouldn't condemn them and in fact have been itching for something like this so they can twist it into a justification for this ICE BS.

Let's not forget how much and how often Trump has wanted to shoot and kill peaceful protesters, or how he once bragged he'd not lose any support if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. Of course he'd never actually shoot anyone himself, he's too much of a snivelling coward. Much better to have someone else do it. Stochastic terrorism 101.

This is the America those MAGA morons wanted. It's the America they got. Buckle up, cos the mask has fully slipped and this is just the beginning. Our Kent State, if you will.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the reason that the US hasn't fought a real battle against a peer opponent is because there simply hasn't been one (partly by design) and while China is progressing in terms of shipbuilding and manufacturing, something that the US actually does need to keep up with, it's still not quite on the same level because of it's inability to project force outside of the Asia Pacific region (even the UK and France have a limited global reach power-projection) and the fact it's not been properly battle-tested while the US has demonstrated remarkable capability in conventional warfare.

The isn't even keeping up, it's falling behind. Shipbuilding numbers are absolutely stark. China is the worlds number one ship builder by far building literally millions of tonnes of shipping every year. The US builds a few tens of thousands of shipping each year. Just for their navy the Chinese commissioned as many ships in one year as the US has commissioned in the last two or three. And the US does not have the capacity to increase that build rate quickly. They are falling behind and will continue to do so.

Also yes, the Chinese cannot project power outside of the Asia-Pacific region, but at the moment their interests don't require them to. At least via military force. That will come with time, though when you operate vast numbers of cargo ships you've got stuff you can press into service for logistics if you need to. China certainly does have significant influence via non-military means however.

I don't disagree with the need to potentially ramp up industrial capacity for defence since the US is falling behind in some areas such as frigates, but I also wouldn't be surprised if China's military might is largely driven by propaganda since many authoritarian state militaries are designed for politics more than warfare. I don't want to underestimate the capabilities of the Chinese military, but at the same time I think some people overestimate it.

To be clear, the US Navy is falling behind all areas apart from basically aircraft carriers. The Chinese are commissioning more destroyers, frigates and cruisers (pretending to be destroyers) that US Navy is and has been for around a decade. You're right that we don't really know for sure how the Chinese military would fight but I worry that you're absolutely under estimating the simple numbers game. Unless the US achieves an incredibly high ratio against the Chinese military they will run out of units with which to carry on the fight in short order and it will take them years to rebuild. The Chinese will meanwhile be pumping out new ships and aircraft at the sort of rates that the US achieved during World War 2 because the Chinese have the industrial base to do it.

I think that depends. Over Taiwan I believe the US would prevail even despite not having the home advantage simply because their logistics are unmatched and have tested naval capabilities, but actually invading the Chinese mainland is another question entirely.

I don't think anyone expects the US to invade the Chinese mainland. But in defence of Taiwan again, I think it's brave to assume that the US would triumph thanks to their logistics. From around D+1 most US and allied bases within a thousand kilometres of China will have been reduced to rubble thanks to Chinese conventional ballistics missile strikes (the US does not have enough interceptors to shoot them all down). Meaning that everything the US needs to fight over and around Taiwan will have to come by ship. There will be few usable airfields within the area of operations remaining. And whilst I would never count out US logistical prowess, there aren't all that many USNS ships around and there are very few civilian ships that can be conscripted into service.

But with how it is in today's world, China has more efficient and less costly ways of crippling it's adversaries anyway so I don't think it's really worth questioning how it would turn out.

Sure, still seems highly unlikely no matter what. But I reckon you overestimate the US and underestimate the Chinese at your peril! The US hasn't lost a war that hasn't even started yet, but they're in danger of losing it.

I think there's a dangerous mix of both, but given how much damage it would do to US hegemony to end NATO and annex Greenland I would hope the sensible voices prevail. What the Trump Administration seems to forget is that much of American global dominance is built on goodwill and friendly relations as well as military might, but hey don't let that stop them trying to claim Europe wouldn't be there for them despite the War on Terror proving otherwise.

But they don't care? It seems quite clear that the people in charge don't care about goodwill and friendly relations. They care about what their force others to do for them via bullying and, if needed, straight up violence. What sensible voices are you hoping will prevail? I've not heard one from within the administration? Even Rubio seems to have found his inner American First voice.

 

[adc82140]

It's our conclusion at work today that Trump is suffering from frontotemporal dementia (I work in a healthcare setting). He has many of the symptoms.

This is not without precedent though. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimers when he was still in power. Difference was then that he was surrounded by more sensible people to cover for it.

Does this forum count as social media for US immigration purposes? If so, there goes any future Esta approval for me!

 

[Sorcerer]

The isn't even keeping up, it's falling behind. Shipbuilding numbers are absolutely stark. China is the worlds number one ship builder by far building literally millions of tonnes of shipping every year. The US builds a few tens of thousands of shipping each year. Just for their navy the Chinese commissioned as many ships in one year as the US has commissioned in the last two or three. And the US does not have the capacity to increase that build rate quickly. They are falling behind and will continue to do so.

Shipbuilding is indeed where China has the edge, and it also has a huge supply of cheap labour compared to the US. I acknowledge that the US is falling behind in manufacturing and that is something I expect many within the industry will want to nip in the bud, but part of me also wonders if it's mere posturing since China's military still has issues with corruption and a lack of battle-testing. I doubt they would be too keen on building up the second part though, and to be fair why would anyone go to war just to get experience if there isn't much else to gain from it?

Also yes, the Chinese cannot project power outside of the Asia-Pacific region, but at the moment their interests don't require them to. At least via military force. That will come with time, though when you operate vast numbers of cargo ships you've got stuff you can press into service for logistics if you need to. China certainly does have significant influence via non-military means however.

This bold point is where I think China would attempt to secure Taiwan. Rather than risk a conflict with the US Navy I suspect they'd rather play the long game and get some pro-Beijing figures in Taiwanese politics similar to how they have done so in Hong Kong. Relating to the subject of railways one of their goals of the high-speed network was bringing provinces like Tibet closer to Beijing for geopolitical reasons.

To be clear, the US Navy is falling behind all areas apart from basically aircraft carriers. The Chinese are commissioning more destroyers, frigates and cruisers (pretending to be destroyers) that US Navy is and has been for around a decade. You're right that we don't really know for sure how the Chinese military would fight but I worry that you're absolutely under estimating the simple numbers game. Unless the US achieves an incredibly high ratio against the Chinese military they will run out of units with which to carry on the fight in short order and it will take them years to rebuild. The Chinese will meanwhile be pumping out new ships and aircraft at the sort of rates that the US achieved during World War 2 because the Chinese have the industrial base to do it.

I don't want to underestimate the numbers game, and obviously at a certain point quantity will become a quality in and of itself. But Iraq's army was among the largest in the world before the Gulf War and had chemical weapons, but in the end the US-led coalition was able to push Saddam out of Kuwait. Some believed Russia's numbers were going to be enough to overwhelm Ukraine but four years later it's still bogging them down.

In that respect China might also be something of a paper tiger as well where despite having lots of fancy equipment it might lack the competence to properly utilise it. Some of the Arab states are similar in the sense where despite having advanced equipment, they aren't particularly renowned for their capabilities and rely a lot on US protection in exchange for selling oil in USD.

I would say caution is the right approach in the case of the PLAN, because complacency is a bit of a fool's game when it comes to these kind of geopolitics, and even if I don't think China is on the same level as the US now it would be wise not to wait until they are unless they actually want to give up their superpower status (as some within the Trump Administration seem to hope for).

I don't think anyone expects the US to invade the Chinese mainland. But in defence of Taiwan again, I think it's brave to assume that the US would triumph thanks to their logistics. From around D+1 most US and allied bases within a thousand kilometres of China will have been reduced to rubble thanks to Chinese conventional ballistics missile strikes (the US does not have enough interceptors to shoot them all down). Meaning that everything the US needs to fight over and around Taiwan will have to come by ship. There will be few usable airfields within the area of operations remaining. And whilst I would never count out US logistical prowess, there aren't all that many USNS ships around and there are very few civilian ships that can be conscripted into service.

It probably wouldn't be an easy victory by any means, especially since oceans can be a logistical nightmare for even the best militaries, but I think based on being more battle-tested and experienced in conventional warfare combined with the logistical prowess I think they would prevail. Unless we're bringing out the nukes, in which case nobody wins that round.

Sure, still seems highly unlikely no matter what. But I reckon you overestimate the US and underestimate the Chinese at your peril! The US hasn't lost a war that hasn't even started yet, but they're in danger of losing it.

I don't want to overestimate or underestimate either side either, and I don't particularly fancy anyone going to war with China just to see how capable they really are. But on balance I think while there is a risk of the US falling behind in some areas (as they already have in manufacturing) I still believe the US Armed Forces would prevail. To what the cost would be is something I'm not so sure about.

But they don't care? It seems quite clear that the people in charge don't care about goodwill and friendly relations. They care about what their force others to do for them via bullying and, if needed, straight up violence. What sensible voices are you hoping will prevail? I've not heard one from within the administration? Even Rubio seems to have found his inner American First voice.

The ones that have had him swing towards a more pro-Ukraine and pro-NATO stance before the MAGA isolationists inevitably swing him back their way since Trump is known for flip-flopping based on the last person he spoke to. I saw an article earlier saying Trump supports the alliance even if he doubts they'd be there for him but I can't seem to find it now. But it wouldn't be out of his character really.

 

[Annetts key]

It's our conclusion at work today that Trump is suffering from frontotemporal dementia (I work in a healthcare setting). He has many of the symptoms.

This is not without precedent though. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimers when he was still in power. Difference was then that he was surrounded by more sensible people to cover for it.

Does this forum count as social media for US immigration purposes? If so, there goes any future Esta approval for me!

Yeah, I think we first started suspecting he has dementia back in March last year, post #903 for example. There have been various posts since as the symptoms show up more often.

 

[nw1]

Does this forum count as social media for US immigration purposes? If so, there goes any future Esta approval for me!

Probably yes. Still, speaking personally at least, I have no desire to visit until the Democrats get back in, and unless you've been attacking the Dems, I doubt entry would then be a problem

 

[weeklycommuter]

Trump again shows his lack of knowledge about Greenland in his remarks about Denmark's elite Sirius Patrol.

In fact the Sirius Patrol is essential for the effective control of large areas of Greenland and I am not aware of the USA having anything similar.

Trump laughs at Denmark’s elite Arctic dog sled unit

The Sirius Dog-Sled Patrol covers up to 20,000 kilometers a year across Greenland.

tvpworld.com

Trump mocks Greenland’s dog-sled teams—Denmark’s elite Arctic unit

Donald Trump mocked Greenland’s security on Sunday by joking about dog sleds, not knowing the force he was ridiculing is in fact an elite military unit operating in one of the most extreme environments on Earth.
Speaking on Sunday, Trump dismissed Denmark’s approach to Greenland’s security, saying: “You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security on Greenland? They added one more dog sled. It’s true. They thought that was a great move.”
The remark drew attention to the Sirius Dog-Sled Patrol, a small but highly specialized unit within Denmark’s armed forces.
Critics argue that a handful of sled teams can’t “defend a country”—and they’re right. The Sirius Dog-Sled Patrol isn’t designed to repel an invasion. Greenland’s broader security falls under Denmark and NATO, which are there to handle major threats. Sirius exists to assert sovereignty and maintain a presence in the ice desert.
Elite, Arctic unit
The patrol is responsible for monitoring around 160,000 square kilometers of northeast Greenland, a vast, uninhabited region of ice, mountains and fjords. Each year, its teams travel an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 kilometers using skis, sleds and dogs, often spending months in isolation.
Founded during World War Two to assert Danish sovereignty after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, Sirius later became a Cold War unit, monitoring the island’s expanse for any Soviet activity.
Today, its mission is surveillance, maintaining a presence and law enforcement in a territory where conventional military equipment struggles to operate. Temperatures can drop below -50 degrees Celsius, and there are no roads, towns or permanent bases across much of the patrol area.
Only around a dozen soldiers serve at a time in two-man teams. Entry is voluntary, requires prior military experience, and volunteers need to be in excellent physical and psychological health. If accepted, they then undergo months of specialized Arctic training, including survival, skiing, navigation, and living off the land. Patrols travel thousands of kilometers each year using skis, sleds pulled by specially bred dogs, and are supported by modern communications when conditions allow.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Future historians will be really fascinated by the chaos that is Trump, they would be baffled how someone like him managed to get into power and again after being convicted & two impeachments. So much material to study, never a dull moment with him, chaos after chaos.

He is just like the cartoon Tasmanian Devil leaving behind a trail of destruction everywhere he goes.

 

[Gloster]

Future historians will be really fascinated by the chaos that is Trump, they would be baffled how someone like him managed to get into power and again after being convicted & two impeachments. So much material to study, never a dull moment with him, chaos after chaos.

He is just like the cartoon Tasmanian Devil leaving behind a trail of destruction everywhere he goes.

History is written by the victors. Will there be any honest material for the historians to study?

 

[Cdd89]

Probably yes. Still, speaking personally at least, I have no desire to visit until the Democrats get back in, and unless you've been attacking the Dems, I doubt entry would then be a problem

I am not sure actually. Being seen as too involved in the politics of a country is going to be considered a red flag, as that MP who was refused entry to Hong Kong discovered.

To be fair I doubt any of us on here rise to the level of "activist" - but given that the burden of proof is on the visitor to assure that they're visiting solely for a holiday (etc), it isn't going to help.

 

[martin butler]

Future historians will describe this era as the time America lost not just its sanity, but its moral compass also, and undid years of peaceful co-existence
If Trump destroys Nato, as we know it now, then who gains, Putin, and China, but what comes next will also bring much change.

A European facing replacement, will have different requirements, more active stance, and quick reaction, it potentially could include Ukraine, so allowing European forces to operate on its soil to bring about overwhelming power should Russia try to extend its territory, it would effectively side line American and Russian attempts to run the show, the EU,I would argue, could be an even bigger threat to Trump, and vances idea of world order based on domination

 

[nw1]

I am not sure actually. Being seen as too involved in the politics of a country is going to be considered a red flag, as that MP who was refused entry to Hong Kong discovered.

To be fair I doubt any of us on here rise to the level of "activist" - but given that the burden of proof is on the visitor to assure that they're visiting solely for a holiday (etc), it isn't going to help.

But presumably the current setup is all about keeping out people who might be seen as a threat to Trump and his regime.

Would it be valid for the UK border to prevent an American who had strongly criticised Boris online from entering the country? That would be an analagous situation: foreign citizen banned from country for criticising previous government.
IMO it would be pretty damned shocking and outrageous if an American, or any citizen of a friendly country, was banned entry to the UK for criticising a previous government - or even the current government.

The only valid reason for keeping them out would be if they had a history of violence or had made violent threats towards UK politicians - or they were an extremist politician with real power who had behaved oppressively in their own country and we wanted to send a message. Some regular person with no power saying online "Boris is a XXX because of XXXX" or even "Starmer is a XXX because of XXXX" would be absolutely not a valid reason to prevent them from entering the UK.

I realise "strong borders" are very fashionable in the 2020s for some unfathomable reason, but there is no excuse IMO for banning regular citizens of a friendly country from entering just because they are critical of the government. This is what dictatorships do.

How can you "prove" that you're only visiting for a holiday, in any case? You can show them your hotel bookings - but there's absolutely no way of proving to them that you're not going to leave your Minneapolis hotel and join a protest against the ICE killing of Renee Good. Perhaps if Minneapolis is your destination they'll send an ICE spook to watch over your hotel room to ensure you don't do anything which they don't like. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me

 

[Annetts key]

Future historians will describe this era as the time America lost not just its sanity, but its moral compass also, and undid years of peaceful co-existence
If Trump destroys Nato, as we know it now, then who gains, Putin, and China, but what comes next will also bring much change.

A European facing replacement, will have different requirements, more active stance, and quick reaction, it potentially could include Ukraine, so allowing European forces to operate on its soil to bring about overwhelming power should Russia try to extend its territory, it would effectively side line American and Russian attempts to run the show, the EU,I would argue, could be an even bigger threat to Trump, and vances idea of world order based on domination

The replacement for NATO may actually be a world wide organisation. As in, including not only the existing European members and Canada, but also Ukraine, Australia, New Zealand and maybe other countries. For the first time, islands like the Falkland Islands could be included.

Depending on what happens, other countries may also join.

This new defensive organisation may take over the bases that the U.S. has in the territories of the respective countries. Losing these will really hurt the ability of the U.S. to project power around the world compared to now. They would have to rely on their own aircraft carriers far more.

The U.S. is not likely to be overtaken as the largest most powerful military anytime soon, but if it's funding is cut, at some point in the future it may shrink and no longer be as powerful as now.

 

[nw1]

The replacement for NATO may actually be a world wide organisation. As in, including not only the existing European members and Canada, but also Ukraine, Australia, New Zealand and maybe other countries. For the first time, islands like the Falkland Islands could be included.

Depending on what happens, other countries may also join.

This new defensive organisation may take over the bases that the U.S. has in the territories of the respective countries. Losing these will really hurt the ability of the U.S. to project power around the world compared to now. They would have to rely on their own aircraft carriers far more.

The U.S. is not likely to be overtaken as the largest most powerful military anytime soon, but if it's funding is cut, at some point in the future it may shrink and no longer be as powerful as now.

Perhaps someone needs to at least threaten this.

It might convince the US to see sense - as in, make its citizens understand that being isolated on the international defence stage isn't going to be good, and convince them that voting for the Republicans in the mid-terms and the next presidential election is incredibly silly, especially while there's the threat of unhinged people like Vance becoming president.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps someone needs to at least threaten this.

It might convince the US to see sense - as in, make its citizens understand that being isolated on the international defence stage isn't going to be good, and convince them that voting for the Republicans in the mid-terms and the next presidential election is incredibly silly, especially while there's the threat of unhinged people like Vance becoming president.

Many voters that still support Trump are unlikely to understand the implications, and may even welcome the suggestion of being relieved of the cost and burden of running those bases.

 

[The exile]

Future historians will be really fascinated by the chaos that is Trump, they would be baffled how someone like him managed to get into power and again after being convicted & two impeachments. So much material to study, never a dull moment with him, chaos after chaos.

A year in Landsberg prison didn’t do much harm to another well-known demagogue’s rise to power (ok - the route was slightly less orthodox by modern democratic standards). Contrary to many preconceptions, that administration was markedly chaotic as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

Many voters that still support Trump are unlikely to understand the implications, and may even welcome the suggestion of being relieved of the cost and burden of running those bases.

Yes it's important to note that there's a big strand of Trump's base and also those within the administration who are isolationist. They would quite happily remove basically all American forces and bases from everywhere other than US territories (like Guam) or perhaps a few bases in useful places (like Diego Garcia). Punishment beatings (like Venezuela) are probably acceptable to most of that grouping but beyond that? They'd rather pull everything back to the US and its territories and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[nw1]

A year in Landsberg prison didn’t do much harm to another well-known demagogue’s rise to power (ok - the route was slightly less orthodox by modern democratic standards). Contrary to many preconceptions, that administration was markedly chaotic as well.

I had to read up on that - but the biggest mistake there was that they didn't keep the little **** in there for life.

 

[The exile]

Yes it's important to note that there's a big strand of Trump's base and also those within the administration who are isolationist. They would quite happily remove basically all American forces and bases from everywhere other than US territories (like Guam) or perhaps a few bases in useful places (like Diego Garcia). Punishment beatings (like Venezuela) are probably acceptable to most of that grouping but beyond that? They'd rather pull everything back to the US and its territories and let the chips fall where they may.

Forgetting that in doing so, they would be throwing away one of their big bargaining chips that keeps most of the western world kow-towing to them most of the time.

 

[Annetts key]

Many voters that still support Trump are unlikely to understand the implications, and may even welcome the suggestion of being relieved of the cost and burden of running those bases.

I don't know about all of them, but the upkeep and running (not including the cost of the U.S. personnel) of some are actually funded by the host country.

 

[nw1]

I am most surprised and extremely disappointed not to see more sign of the ICE killing of Renee Good on today's front pages (though the Guardian does focus on a worthwhile story about Farage's alleged racism as a school pupil, to be fair). I looked at them while in the shops earlier, and it was completely absent. Shocking, really.

Seems like they don't care. All too busy rabbiting on about some trivial, parochial nonsense regarding pub duties, or something. So what? Who cares about piffle like that when the West's most powerful nation is seemingly in the stranglehold of right-wing authoritarianism?

It almost seems as if the right-wing media in the UK, at least, seem to want to hide the Trump administration and their agents' wrongdoing.

 

[brad465]

I am most surprised and extremely disappointed not to see more sign of the ICE killing of Renee Good on today's front pages (though the Guardian does focus on a good story about Farage's alleged racism as a school pupil, to be fair). I looked at them while in the shops earlier, and it was completely absent. Shocking, really.

Seems like they don't care. All too busy rabbiting on about some trivial, parochial nonsense about pub duties, or something. So what? Who cares about piffle like that when the West's most powerful nation is seemingly in the stranglehold of right-wing authoritarianism?

It almost seems as if the right-wing media in the UK, at least, seem to want to hide the Trump administration and their agents' wrongdoing.

As disgraceful as this incident is, US news does not last long on UK front pages on the basis that it is not domestic news. In the US it might be worthy of front page news for longer, however at the same time Trump won't stand for it so will bomb somewhere just to change the headlines.

 

[nw1]

As disgraceful as this incident is, US news does not last long on UK front pages on the basis that it is not domestic news. In the US it might be worthy of front page news for longer, however at the same time Trump won't stand for it so will bomb somewhere just to change the headlines.

I think it's fair to say that we live in a world where international news is of more consequence than domestic UK matters though, particularly as the UK's most pressing issues are shared with the whole of the West.

 

[brad465]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump intervenes in some way in Iran this weekend, as not only is Trump riding high on the initial success of the Venezuela operation, but the Ayatollah is now effectively provoking Trump:

More demonstrations erupt in Iran as rights groups say at least 48 protesters killed

Dozens are reported to have been killed since anti-government protests began spreading across the country almost two weeks ago.

www.bbc.co.uk

Speaking to supporters earlier this morning, Khamenei dismissed demonstrators as a "bunch of vandals" seeking to "please" US President Donald Trump.

In a video address broadcast on national TV, Khamenei said: "A bunch of vandals came out in Tehran and other places and destroyed buildings belonging to their own country just to please the president of the US.

"That’s because he made the absurd claim that he supports you rioters and people who are harmful to the country. If he’s capable, he should run his own country."

The Iranian leader, who has been in power since 1989, added that Trump's hands "are stained with blood of more than a thousand Iranian martyred during the 12-day war [with Israel]".

"A group of inexperienced and careless people believe him and act according to his wishes. They set fire to rubbish bins to please him," he adds.

"Let everyone know that the Islamic Republic came to power through the blood of several hundred thousand honourable people and it will not back down in the face of those who deny this."

• As a reminder, Trump has long been a vocal opponent of the Iranian regime and pledged to get the US involved if civilians were to be killed in the protests

 

[dgl]

Doing something in Iran would certainly be interesting, would certainly be more "interesting" than what happened in Venezuela.

 

[najaB]

There's an additional video of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. Interestingly it appears to have been recorded by the ICE officer who shot her using his mobile phone (which raises questions in itself).

Commentary from MSNOW, the raw video is in the first minute or so:

What's shocking is how quickly things went from nothing to someone being dead.

 

[alex397]

There's an additional video of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. Interestingly it appears to have been recorded by the ICE officer who shot her using his mobile phone (which raises questions in itself).

Commentary from MSNOW, the raw video is in the first minute or so:

What's shocking is how quickly things went from nothing to someone being dead.

This video is probably the most upsetting, as you see the lady talking just before she is killed.

The US government should be ashamed of itself, not congratulating itself. The reaction to this murder is simply vile.

I feel very sorry for any sane people in the US.