Trump Returns To Yesteryear

The recent call between Trump and Putin confirms the U.S. president’s pro-Putin stance, as outlined in my “What is Trump Thinking” post. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelinski agreed to a complete ceasefire. Russian President Putin agreed to a ceasefire only on energy sites and some U.S.-Russia hockey games. Zeroing in on only energy is a giveaway of where Putin is feeling the pain. Ukraine has developed its long-range capabilities, enabling it to hit oil and gas facilities in Russia. Diminished oil shipments reduce Russia’s ability to stay afloat.

Remember, for most of Biden’s term, Ukraine was forbidden from using U.S. weapons deep in Russia, while Putin was free to hit anything anywhere in Ukraine. I and others recommend letting Ukraine return fire anywhere in Russia launched attacks or war necessities produced. If Russia felt the pain, it would change its tune. Putin’s counter-proposal proves us correct.

Suppose Trump is serious about preserving Ukraine’s independence. In that case, he should’ve told Putin he either made real concessions or would supply Ukraine with everything it needs to put Russia in a world of pain. He didn’t, showing he favors Putin.

In the post, I pointed out Trump’s position was unworkable. Russia can’t break with China. Turning his back on Europe to cuddle up with Putin makes no sense.

Continue reading

There Is A Great Deal of Ruin In A Nation

Adam Smith argued, “There is a Great Deal of Ruin in a Nation,” acknowledging that our political leaders must do a lot of bungling to bring down a powerful and prosperous country. Given the administrations we’ve had since the turn of the century, I wonder if we are about to find out just how much ruin we can take before the fall.

Rather than following his father’s example, George W. Bush invaded and conquered Iraq. After crushing Iraq’s military in Kuwait, George H.W. Bush refused to invade that nation to get rid of Saddam Hussain. The elder Bush realized this would upset the balance of power in the Mideast. Getting rid of one bloodthirsty leader would only empower the murderous mullahs in Iran at a significant cost to us. The younger Bush went ahead anyway with dire results.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, so why focus our efforts on him? Afghanistan harbored the organization carrying out the attacks, which needed our attention so it wouldn’t happen again.

On the domestic front, the younger Bush administration was asleep at the switch while the housing crisis brought us the “Great Recession.” Others warned that the combination of cheap money and sub-par lending is combustible, but the powers ignored the signs.

Continue reading

These Bubbles Need to Be Popped

Prompted by my belief that radical elements in each increasingly control the two established parties, I posted the series on the “Future Party.” (It is Available on this site.) I worried this situation would lead to wild policy swings whenever we change presidents. Unfortunately, this has been the case from Obama to Trump. Bolstered by initial control of both houses of Congress, each president pursued policies opposite their immediate predecessor.

One only has to look at our border migrant policies. Trump tightened Obama’s, only to find Biden reversed course on his first day. Trump’s return reversed Biden on his first day. This whiplash is also evident in foreign, domestic, and economic policies.

In the past, people could count on continuity. Businesses could commit to multi-year plans. Friends and allies knew they could count on us instead of watching their backs. If there were problems, we could hash things out before radical change.

That’s all in the past. Where the far ends of each party differ, they are often direct opposites. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party backs its climate change convictions with billions of dollars for windmills, solar, and electric vehicles (EVs), which are anathema to the Republican right. They look to oil and gas to continue to power the world. To that end, they’ve encouraged vast liquefied Gas Terminals. This situation leaves anyone with significant power needs with a damned if you do, damned if you don’t headache.

Now, Donald Trump has escalated this uncertainty. He has reversed Biden’s energy policies and added supply chain anxiety with constantly changing tariff policies.

Continue reading

What’s Trump Thinking?

This view of the world may differ from what you’re used to, but it will help you understand why Trump and Zelensky see things differently. It will help you determine which one is right. Bear with me:

The Trump view is coming into focus. His attempt to end the Ukraine war began with his Secretary of State tossing essential negotiating points in the toilet—membership in N.A.T.O. is never going to happen, and forget about Ukraine regaining territory. Putin had already banked some of his greatest desires without giving up anything. Vice President Vance blasted some of our European allies as anti-free speech. Then Trump called Zellensky a dictator.

If you were a visitor from Mars assessing which side Trump was taking in the Ukraine conflict, the pro-Russian tact would be evident. Trump gave away his pro-Putin stance by allowing V.P. Vance, who is known to harbor ill will towards Ukraine, to attack its President in the meeting on national TV. The Russian response is unabashed glee. If Trump demands Russian concessions in private, would Putin be so happy?

Why does Trump favor the Russian dictator? There are two possible theories. Our President sees himself as Frederick the Great of Prussia, joining with his fellow monarchs in Russia and Austria-Hungary to divide up hapless Poland- only he sees himself getting together with Russia and China to divide the world into spheres of influence. That aligns with the view of Trump, the Narcissist adding “Great” to his title. His attitudes towards Canada, Denmark, and Panama point in this direction. How does this conform to our ideals? How does anyone but him benefit?

Continue reading

Neville Trump

If Trump’s goal in opening peace talks with Putin is to end the current Ukraine war and ensure Russia doesn’t begin a new chapter a few years down the road, he has a strange way of going about it. Instead of presenting Putin with a list of actions the U.S. will take unless Russia agrees to workable guarantees of Ukraine’s borders, Trump’s Secretay of Defence announced NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table. Then, his Vice President infers the right-of-center German Christian Democrats should hook up with the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany (Afd).

If this wasn’t bad enough, Trump chose to denigrate Ukraine’s President as a Dictator responsible for the continuing war. Trump demands President Zelinsky hold an election. According to Trump, he has little support in Ukraine. (The latest poll has Zellinsky’s popularity at 57%),

Trump proposed that Ukraine pledge its natural resources for U.S. development to secure any more U.S. aid, and no U.S. forces will ever be involved in maintaining Ukraine’s borders. What is strange is that many of the resources are in the Russian-occupied part of Ukraine,

Putin must be dancing a jig over his good fortune. He can visualize sharing a Nobel Peace Prize with Trump while waiting to devour the rest of Ukraine for dessert. He doesn’t have to give up a thing.

What caused Trump to denounce the Ukrainian President? He dared complain about his exclusion from the talks that would decide his nation’s fate. One of the few remaining columnists, George Will, whose first memories were of World War II, reminds us of a similar circumstance on the road to that horrible war. The leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany gathered in Munich to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia. The one excluded was the leader of that nation.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed the agreement reached there promised “Peace in our Time.” Seven months later, Germany completed the takeover of the doomed nation. History gives Zelinsky every reason to object to Trump and Putin deciding the life or death of his country. Trump even excluded friendly European nations from the talks. The U.S. President’s anti-involvement stance echoes Chamberlain’s observation about “a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing.”

Continue reading