US Foreign Policy under second Donald Trump presidency.

Trump Will Turn Mexico Into America's Ukraine, by Dmitry Bavyrin for VZGLYAD. 01.10.2025.

US President-elect Donald Trump has provoked a dispute in America about what a “fair” US territory should be: twice as big as it is now, by adding Canada, or, conversely, half as big, since the entire southwest was taken from Mexico. Washington’s conflict with Mexico is an inevitable consequence of Trump’s presidency. It has already begun – and will benefit Russia.

Internet trolling has become the most fashionable style of big politics, and this fashion was set by the future US President Donald Trump with Elon Musk joining him . At the same time, the “victims” of their trolling from Greenland to Panama really do look like victims: they mumble something in response and fall into a stupor under the pressure of Trump’s neo-imperialism .

The tandem of two eccentric billionaires declares the goal of doubling the territory of the United States and replacing the government in the leading countries of Europe with an “extra-systemic” opposition. How serious they are in these intentions and what resources they are ready to use, no one knows for sure, most likely, not even Trump and Musk themselves know. For now, they are simply “catching the wave”, having fun, enjoying the enthusiastic reaction of fans and the inarticulate babble of those very “victims”.

The only one who was able to respond to American trolling with dignity and genre restraint (that is, with exactly the same trolling, only with the stakes raised) is the new president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum. In the territory of the southern neighbour of the USA, unlike the northern neighbour - Canada , Trump has not encroached yet, but demands to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. He does not justify this in any way (I want it, they say - and that's it), as is usually the case with "trolls".

Sheinbaum did not lose her composure and in response put forward a proposal to rename North America to Mexican America, and, unlike Trump, she did not skimp on the justification .

This name is indeed recorded in a number of historical documents, it is much older than the United States and is believed to go back to the self-designation of the Native Americans - the Aztecs (Mexico). But the most remarkable thing is that Sheinbaum voiced this proposal against the background of a map showing the historical territory of Mexico. Almost half of these lands are now occupied by the United States - from Oregon in the northwest to Louisiana in the southeast.

That is, in response to Trump’s imperialist posture that his newly great America should be twice as big as the current US, the head of Mexico hints that the US could become twice as small – as part of restoring historical justice.

This seems to be one of those cases where good luck should be wished to both parties.
The Americans halved Mexico as a result of the war of 1846-1848, which in Mexican historiography is called an intervention. For the Mexicans, it was truly devastating; it could not have been otherwise. If we look at the history of circumstances rather than individuals, then Mexico by that time was an amorphous state weakened by internal conflicts, which had almost no control over its northern lands (that is, today's Texas, California, etc.).

The United States, on the contrary, was rapidly becoming a powerful country – one of the richest, most populous, educated and technologically advanced countries in the world. The country needed territories for development, so it oppressed everyone it could reach – from the Indians to the British, and the sparsely populated northern lands of Mexico, mired in political chaos and other troubles, were a classic example of what was “lying around badly”.

The military intervention was preceded by a civil one – thousands of landowners moved from the USA to Mexico, taking advantage of the laws that the American elites had lobbied for in Mexico City. At the right time, these people rebelled and declared independence, which allowed Washington to remain within the framework of the “Monroe Doctrine” it had formulated.

The main goal of the doctrine was to protect the continent from any European interference. The US appointed itself a kind of gendarme of both Americas, but also took on some self-restrictions. For example, it forbade itself from annexing the territories of any other American country. It is a completely different matter if this territory is "no man's land" or is an independent state. Therefore, before becoming part of the US, Texas and California were sort of independent states: Texas - for several years, California - for several weeks (and only on paper).

Such self-restraint (completely uncharacteristic, for example, of Europe at that time) was a consequence of the intricacies of US domestic politics – the rivalry between the agrarian slave-owning South and the industrial North. Each new state meant two more senators in Congress, and the northerners had good reason to fear that by further expanding to the south, the southerners would establish tight control over Capitol Hill.

Therefore, the idea of ​​intervention in Mexico had many opponents - from the future president Abraham Lincoln to part of the intelligentsia, who frightened the population by saying that


Mexican chaos and decay will spread to the United States like an infection.

Under the Southern president and in his own way outstanding politician James Knox Polk, the balance nevertheless tipped in favor of the Southerners, and the formal pretext for intervention was that Mexican border guards had engaged in battle with American troops and killed 17 people. These troops themselves had appeared on Mexican territory as if "by accident."

By an equally “random” coincidence, Polk’s government had sent an armed force under John Fremont across the Mojave Desert on an exploratory, mapping mission. When American troops landed on the California coast during the war, Fremont’s men and earlier settlers greeted them as the “Government of Independent California,” a new nation that considered itself an ally of Washington in the war against Mexico and dreamed of becoming part of the United States. The “dreams,” of course, came true.

John Fremont later received the nickname "The Great Pathfinder" and became the first candidate for US President from the Republican Party, which at that time defended the interests of the Northerners rather than the Southerners (while promoting the slaveholders' policies, he was at the same time a staunch opponent of slavery). Trump, as is well known, was elected president from the same party, but now it is mainly the South of the US that votes for it.

In our case, what is important is not this "revolution" caused by the course of 20th century history, but the revolution in US-Mexico relations. It is happening only now.

The lesson of a disastrous war with a powerful neighbour like the United States was learned quite firmly by the Mexicans. To a greater or lesser extent, all their subsequent governments were loyal to Washington and wary of angering it. There were local contradictions, but in a geopolitical sense, Mexico remained a reliable “backyard” of the United States until 2018, when Andrés Manuel López Obrador became its president. Under him, Mexico City has at least rhetorically turned toward the Global South and maintains good (but not yet particularly diverse) relations with Moscow.

Sheinbaum is a long-time ally, successor and protégé of Obrador, who promised to continue his policies. In an article dedicated to her victory in the presidential elections, the Vzglyad newspaper predicted a further collapse of relations between Mexico and Washington if Trump becomes president of the United States. Trump has not yet become president, but he has already begun to “comb through” historical grievances and territorial claims with his neighbors.

Sheinbaum said she was willing to participate in all of this and made it clear that she would not give Trump a break.

Yes, for now this is all trolling on the Internet, but it will certainly have consequences in real politics, just as quarrels on the Internet can lead to conflict in real life.

Trump stirs up such conflicts literally out of thin air. A distinctive feature of both Obrador and Sheinbaum is their relative indifference to foreign policy: they say we don’t like American hegemony, but our priority is the country’s internal problems. In some places, successful attempts to solve these problems are loved by the people – the approval ratings of both politicians are off the charts.

But because of Trump, it will apparently not be possible to limit ourselves to domestic politics alone. The dispute over the name of the Gulf has already been followed by a discussion about “fair borders,” and the construction of a wall and a tariff war lie ahead – in short, a very fertile ground for Mexico to turn from an eternal ally into an adversary and even an enemy of the United States.

The US itself has nurtured such an enemy for us, Russia, on our southwestern borders for the purpose of strategic containment. So historical justice, among other things, requires that the Americans receive a similar problem with historical squabbles and territorial disputes in their own “soft underbelly.”

Experience has shown that the problem must be more serious than Cuba. It seems that Mexico is ideal. Including because we don’t even have to make an effort to cultivate an enemy of the USA in its person: Trump will manage on his own.

https://m.vz.ru/world/2025/1/10/1307777.html

Ukraine in exchange for quiet support of US development in the Arctic?

Ukraine is practically a done deal... why would Putin horse trade anything for that to go any easier...

I would think what interests Putin most is the sanctions on their gas and oil, but there is no way Trump is going to take the foot off the throat of Russia because Russia is just too much competition for them in a free and open world market....

He is not going to drop the sanctions on Russian LNG, he is going to double down and increase them.

If anything he will probably allow Russian companies back into SWIFT to try to get them to go back to trading in US dollars.... but when they don't he is going to get all pissy and sanctiony again...

He sells himself as a great deal maker but his main claim to fame is ripping up deals in the hopes of replacing them with a deal that is better for the US.... but no new deals are signed so instead of being the super deal maker he falls back on the no deal was better than that deal for the US.

Dealing with other countries is going to be part of the deal in the Arctic no matter who claims the actual territory because every country is going to want their say in what are essentially international waters that happen to be economic exclusive territory claimed by each of the countries.

With Canada and the US and the EU and essentially Russia it was always Russia talking with the US and her vassals.

The US is going to want to focus on the Arctic and China and not the Ukraine so even with no agreement there Putin will be happy and the EU and Zelensky not.

This is a key island to control the exit of the Russian Northern Fleet to the Atlantic.

Amusing use of the word Control... don't you mean monitor, or be present to watch it sail back and forth?

They can observe but really otherwise can't do much about it.

Trump gave Russia and China a luxurious gift, by Dmitry Bavyrin for VZGLYAD. 01.16.2025.

Donald Trump's "theft of Greenland" could be disastrous for both the Republican Party he represents and the global American empire, whose main force is NATO. Few in the US have realized this, but the British are already sounding the alarm, declaring a "gift for Russia." But does Russia need such a "gift"?

“The reality is that Trump’s threats against Greenland, Panama and Canada are an absolute gift to Russia and China… Even if Trump never carries out his threats, he has already done enormous damage to America’s global standing and alliance system. And he’s not even in office yet.”

The Financial Times published such a “gloomy premonition.” According to its main idea, the “assassination attempt” of the elected US president on the same Greenland would “legalize” the actions of Moscow and Beijing in relation to Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively.

Trump has already made it clear that he is ready to use force. “No, I can’t assure you. I can’t assure you on either one,” he said bluntly, answering a journalist’s direct question about whether the gentleman could promise not to use the army to establish control over the Panama Canal and Greenland.

Trump's nominee for national security adviser (currently held by Jake Sullivan) echoed this sentiment. "President Trump always keeps his options open, but there are also many ways to change existing agreements," he told ABC about the use of military force.

It is worth noting that Trump has quite quickly gone from a peacemaker leader who boasted that he had not started a single new war and promised to end all the old ones, to a politician who threatens his allies with weapons. These include not only NATO member Denmark, the owner of Greenland, but also Panama, one of the last Latin American countries that is almost entirely loyal to Washington.

The example with Denmark is even more important, because within NATO this has never happened even between Turkey and Greece, where one ally took territory from another (Cyprus is not legally Greece and was not a member of NATO). This will probably lead to the half-life and death of the North Atlantic Alliance in its current form, even if for now it sounds too good to be true.

On average, the world press is rather skeptical about Trump's threats and plans for territorial expansion. Political scientists and politicians polled around the world usually answer "no" to the question of whether he can accomplish all this, and in the best case for Trump - "more likely no than yes." He has threatened many people and promised many things, including ending the military conflict in Ukraine in 24 hours, so the forecasts are not in his favor.

However, his own people – the Anglo-Saxons – believe Trump much more.

The FT, which went into hysterics over the expectations of an "absolute gift" to Russia and China, is a British publication. The reaction of the American press is even more indicative. While conservative media outlets paint a picture of the benefits of acquiring Greenland, and a group of Republicans in Congress have already prepared a bill to begin negotiations on the "acquisition" of the island, the Democratic press seems to have changed its tone.

The first reaction was in the British spirit – moral panic, concern for allies, search for Russian advantage, phrases in the spirit of “look at what he’s doing.” Later, a balancing act took place – it seemed that Trump’s ideas were advantageous, recognizing their implementation as possible if they were not carried out by Trump (because “Trump will ruin everything”).

If, they say, we grab Greenland “the smart way” – without war and loss of allies, perhaps it’s not so bad.


This is not yet a “national compromise,” but it is a move in a clear direction – towards the absorption of the largest island in the world.

Apparently, the party bosses of the Trump-hating Democrats saw in the ownership of the island not only the strategic interests of the United States in the area of ​​control over northern trade routes and the Arctic, but also their own political benefit.

If Greenland were to gain statehood, it would be logical to assume that the Kalaallit Eskimos (90% of the island's population) would elect Democrats as their representatives to the Senate, who "specialize" in distributing social benefits and protecting the rights of national minorities. This would give the Democratic Party a huge head start, by today's standards, in establishing control over the main chamber of Congress. For example, in the previous convocation of the Senate there were 50 Democrats and Republicans, two people from each state.

If the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico were also made states, the Democrats would take over the Senate permanently, if not forever.

By the way, if Canada with its liberal population becomes the 51st state of the USA (and Trump allegedly wants this too), all subsequent presidential elections will be won by the Democrats. That is, from the point of view of party interests, the expansion of the USA either to the north or to the south is beneficial to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Not a single major U.S. territorial acquisition—not Alaska, Louisiana, Florida, Oregon, Texas, California —has been nationally supported. In each case, large and influential groups of citizens opposed it, including for partisan reasons.

But Trump, presumably, doesn't care about party interests in the long run. He'll retire in four years, and the contribution to national history that comes from expanding the country outweighs everything else for him. He loves himself far more than he loves the party.

However, an even more significant contribution to history would be if Europe, China and Russia united against the US, which under Trump has completely “lost its bearings.” Just six months ago, this seemed impossible; now, discussions on this matter are taking place in Western media. And some politicians in Denmark, where, according to opinion polls, almost three-quarters of the population are not ready to give up Greenland, sincerely believe in the prospect of an anti-American alliance.

"In the event of extreme escalation and tension, we are forced to take extreme measures and ask Russia for help to resolve this problem. I am confident that our request will be heard," said Folketing (Danish parliament) MP Carsten Henge.

There is a special atmosphere in the Folketing, and in the Socialist People's Party, where Henge is a member, too. In reality, the Danes have come out on top in the world in terms of their contribution to the fight against Russia, if we compare aid to Ukraine, including supplies of tanks and fighter jets. The contribution of the US, Britain and Germany as countries is greater, but the Danes are first as a people (i.e., per capita).

But even without regard to Ukraine, this is one of the most anti-Russian countries in Western Europe, and consistently anti-Russian, which was usually explained by Copenhagen's strict orientation toward Washington. If, under Trump, this same Washington takes Greenland away from Denmark, Russia would rather "order a cup of coffee" than want to get involved for the Danes, even if the Americans' tighter control over the huge northern island (and it is already quite tight, right up to the presence of a US military space base in Greenland) is something that we would like to do without.

However, there is an opinion that in the West it is more practical and profitable to conduct business and resolve issues directly with the United States – without “intermediaries” like Denmark with its consistently Russophobic government. And the best option is if Greenland is not a Danish colony, but not an American state either, but a formally independent state, to whose government one can find one’s own approach (especially if the Chinese help).

Trump's current threats and further actions (hypothetical) may lead, if not to Greenland becoming the 51st state, then to that very independence as an intermediate stage. Such a scenario, unlike the US war with Denmark, is objectively ripe.

According to opinion polls, the absolute majority of Kalaallit support independence. The Greenlandic government (and the island has broad autonomy) openly sets its achievement as its goal. Trump's hunt for the island and his resentment towards the Danes (Greenland is the only thing they repeatedly refuse the US) is fuel for separatism, which in this case can legitimately be called decolonization.

Greenland was a typical colony, which the colonizers skinned alive, treating the local population extremely cruelly for a time. Whether it was war or secession, the Danes suffered from both "according to their sins."

If there is a war, then, as the American publication Politico believes, it will be “the shortest in history.” The Danes have nothing to repel a theoretical US invasion of Greenland with, since, as the same publication emphasizes, they have disarmed their army in favour of Ukraine.

This is somewhat disingenuous: the Danish army has long since lost its combat capability as an independent unit, primarily due to its membership in NATO. Troops are formed and supplied according to the principle of "division of labour" with other countries of the alliance, when some have swords, others have muskets, and still others have horses, and to create a fighting force, all this must be brought together under US command.

Therefore, the problem is not in Ukraine, but in the United States itself, which has always demanded submission from its allies, but has never been a reliable ally itself. Even before everyone who wants to see this for themselves is convinced by the example of Ukraine, it would indeed be good if Trump began to torment Denmark, which is shamelessly loyal to the United States, purely out of love for foreign lands.

Such a funeral feast for the vaunted Atlantic solidarity, the British are right, would certainly please Russia, and perhaps China too. But it is in no way a "gift". A gift means some moral obligations, and Russia owes nothing to the US and Trump with his ambitious projects.

https://m.vz.ru/politics/2025/1/16/1308831.html

If there is a war, then, as the American publication Politico believes, it will be “the shortest in history.” The Danes have nothing to repel a theoretical US invasion of Greenland with, since, as the same publication emphasizes, they have disarmed their army in favour of Ukraine.

The thing about colonial powers is they always massively underestimate their enemies.

Are the US military prepared to shoot civilians in the street protesting their invasion?

Most native groups in the arctic can be rather fierce fighters even with the most basic weapons... look at the Siberians and the Fins etc etc.

Fishermen and hunters in the Soviet Union were quite successful in the far north against their nazi opponents.

US firepower exceeded the firepower of the Vietnamese by several times and that didn't really help. How many Greenlanders do they think they can kill to make them want to become good American citizens?

How are Alaskans and Hawaiians going to feel about seeing another piece of land broken and bloody to be part of the US... we are told everyone is jealous and wants to join the US, yet stories of people leaving become increasingly common now too.

The real irony is that the US is not going to invade... they already have military bases there... perhaps Trump is reading about the Crimea and think the mistreatment by Kiev made them turn to Russia and that if he offers investment to extract minerals and wealth from their huge territory that Greenland might want to join the US. Tiny denmark not having the funds or clout to offer the same level of investment or to stop the US doing what it wants.

The western world has chosen the US as a leader so they can't pick and choose which demands to follow and which to question.

This is going to lead to Greenland getting independence, but I can't see them wanting to join the US... it is more likely they will allow Chinese and American companies compete for the contracts to extract their resources and get the benefit from that competition...

Apart from a few words at the UN I can't see Russia intervening directly to stop any US invasion, but I rather suspect any resistance fighters in Greenland would get all the weapons they want or need to be effective.

As Afghanistan in the 1980s showed... ATGMs and MANPADS can make all the difference in conflicts in difficult terrain where the best transport is helicopter.

Russia probably has a few thousand Stingers they have no use for that could be sent to the region to help deal with unwanted invaders...

Trump's Return: The End of America's Claims to Global Hegemony, by Pëtr Akopov for RiaNovosti. 01.20.2025.

There should have been no inauguration ceremony for the new old US president – ​​Donald Trump should not have won the presidential election. Lose or simply not live to see it, but he should not have returned to the White House. That was the opinion of the absolute majority of the American elite, for whom the billionaire upstart’s first term was already an unfortunate twist in national history. However, Trump survived, won, and returned. And not for four years, but to begin a new chapter in history. Not only American, but also global.

And it is not about Trump's greatness - he is not starting a new chapter, but his return to power symbolizes it. It is the return, even more than the first victory in 2016, that signifies what has happened. The old America is over, irrevocably. A new one is beginning - unknown, but certainly very different from the existing - dying one. And given the place and role of the current US in the world - the formally existing world order is also ending. Its decline is associated not with Trump, but with Putin, but Trump's revenge confirms the diagnosis. The old world is leaving, and the new one, as always, is born in blood and agony.

Donald Trump feels like a messiah, and the recent assassination attempt has only strengthened his case. Many Americans feel the same way about him, for whom the extravagant billionaire showman has become a symbol of hope for serious change. Trump is indeed a true American patriot, having self-proclaimed himself a member of the political elite at a time when there are almost no American patriots left in the traditional sense of the word. The establishment of recent decades has consisted of either hardened cynics or people who consider America the pinnacle of human civilization, called to shepherd all the peoples of the world, although these two hypostases are easily combined. And Trump, whose family history does not include many generations of immigrants (his father was almost born in Germany ), has proven to be a sincere patriot of America, both real and mythical, at a time when this has become completely unfashionable among the elite. But this alone, combined with his personal fighting qualities, would not have been enough to break the two-party machine and become president twice. There needed to be a demand from below for such a guy, and it had formed in American society by the middle of the last decade.

But even this would not have been enough — if not for the complete collapse of the American elite in the eyes of the American people. Disappointment in systemic politicians, the inhabitants of the "Washington swamp" had been accumulating for a long time, but by the time Trump was nominated in 2015, it had reached its maximum. The establishment had become so out of touch with reality that it was no longer even going to hide its family-oligarchic nature: according to the scenario, the wife of the ex-president was supposed to fight in the elections with the son and brother of another former head of state. Trump broke not only this scenario, but also the entire two-party machine of the American ruling class. It will never recover, although it still pretends to be moving.

But there was another circumstance that played in Trump's favor: disappointment in the elite coincided with the crisis of the American global project. Conventionally called "the world in American style" or "the unipolar world", it reached a dead end in the 2010s. And our Crimea was only a symptom of this. America found itself at a crossroads: continue to follow the path of building an American-centric world, trying to maintain global dominance, or admit the hopelessness of this undertaking and turn to repairing and strengthening its own state.

Most of the establishment advocated the first option, and the majority of the people - the second. Trump not only caught this moment - he began to call things by their proper names. He did not simply play on the opposition of the elites to the people - he said that the elite is ineffective, that its bet on world domination is beaten, that with it, everyone will fail. He essentially scared Americans that if the cosmopolitan elite lost, they would take all of America down with them—and he was not far from the truth.

It is useless to guess what Trump will achieve in his four years of a second term, but the most unpredictable US president has already changed America. And it will undoubtedly change even faster now – along with the world, which has entered the post-American era.

https://ria.ru/20250120/tramp-1994625035.html

I watched his acceptance speech. World domination is on his agenda.

Two things were not mentioned, Ukraine and the catastrophic state of US finances. Why spoil the party with a dose of reality?

He also did not say a single word about the absurdally high (and growing) wealth/income inequality in the US ;(. Which is the only cause of poverty in the US (not "wokeism" "cultural marxism", immigrants or whatever).

I'm sure that unless someone like AOC takes over in 2029, common American folks have really tough times ahead of them.