To suspect the "deal" between the US and Russia Greenland for Ukraine?

[FancyRedRobin]

The way things are shaping up I'm beginning to think the USAs negotiations with Putin were for USA to stand aside and let Putin have part of Ukraine and for Russia to support the US to take Greenland.

Yes but the Trump regime seems to have collective amnesia!

@logicisall much apricated, for the analysis and fair points

What does 'apricated' mean @LovingHare ? Is it the MAGA version of appreciated?

It's like their Brexit but x1000.
Also affects the rest of the world much more...

I think one of the biggest issues in politics is how many deals and agreements happen behind closed doors, without the public ever knowing. These decisions can shape world events things like wars, trade policies, or even the price of food and energy before we ever hear about them on the news.

While leaders talk about transparency, it could be debated that part of politics often operates in secrecy, with deals deciding outcomes long before the public gets a say. It’s frustrating because then when people try to do political analysis it gives mixed information

To answer your question @LovingHare , free and fair, democratic elections are when the electorate votes for who will represent them, so we are talking of an alignment of values between people and their representatives so they do have a say in policies/actions that affect them. That some people may not have voted for a particular party is irrelevant, as the system has winners and losers, the possibility of a coalition government, and government by a majority vote.

The art of a good politician is the ability to negotiate with both allies and opposition to produce a result where no party thinks they have been screwed over, but the politician's viewpoint prevails. This means meeting and talks, with lobbyists and other interested parties which may not be reported in the media. This does not mean that the meetings are held 'in secret', and journalists have used Freedom of Information requests to find out processes and outcomes they deem are of interest to the public

The electorate is part of the deal making process, in that they gave their elected representatives the mandate to act on their behalf and (hopefully) in their best interests. Exercising your right to vote is therefore of primary importance and subverting that (as seen by moving voting centres to inconvenient places during the last US general election) can affect election results.

I would recommend Bloomberg TV for their comprehensive coverage of world stock markets and fiscal policies as a way of understanding the real world effects of Trump's geopolitical announcements. Politics and Economics have to be understood and analysed together because they tend to have cause and effect consequences.

@logicisall very much appricated thank you

All of that becomes a moot point if the US decides to makes itself an enemy and commits acts of war against the West.

You might hate it, but we reserve the right to treat the US based on its merits as it is showing itself today - an unstable, increasingly-authoritarian, religious-extremist-influenced country declaring war on the rest of us, a former ally that no longer shares the values of the free world, and a former ally that may indeed no longer be free itself in a few years.

I thank God DH failed the presence test to pass on his US citizenship to our kids. They are far, far better off without it. I suspect a lot of Americans, yourself included, will remain forever mystified about that though.

For all the hand-wringing about the U.S. becoming an enemy, it remains the very foundation of Western security. The same people who brand America as "unstable" conveniently forget that it's the one power keeping the global order from fracturing.

If the U.S. truly walked away, what’s the alternative? Who steps up? The EU? NATO without the U.S. backbone? Let’s not pretend Europe fractured, bureaucratic, and militarily underfunded can suddenly hold the line against adversaries emboldened by American withdrawal.

As for values, America has always been a battleground of competing ideas, but to dismiss it as lost to extremism is both premature and hypocritical.

European nations have their own struggles with authoritarian drift, economic instability, and political upheaval none of which seem to get the same level of scrutiny.

The US is now siding with Russia and talking about annexing other countries.

As for the claims about annexing other countries, while there have been provocative statements regarding territories like Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, these remarks are largely seen as rhetorical or symbolic

It remains a foundation for Western Security @LovingHare , for now. What most people are saying on this thread that Americas current actions means that we doubt this can continue.

The pointless trade wars with allies? C'mon!!

I suppose we know they are because Trump's buddies were given the heads up and probably shorted the stock market. Who made money in this chaos, that's what we should be asking.

Those statements have been made and should be taken seriously

Or are you saying Trump tells lies?

True, fair points and ill admit its heading to uncharted territory

@LovingHare saying that his threats should only be taken as rhetorical - what are you thinking? What are other countries meant to think? Do we need a translator every time he opens his mouth? How do we know what he means?

This is an absolutely insane way for a President to conduct himself.

Leaders often use calculated rhetoric to test reactions, signal intentions, or create leverage in negotiations. This approach, while unconventional, can sometimes yield results by keeping adversaries and allies guessing.

While the style may seem chaotic, it could also be argued that it reflects a break from traditional diplomacy, aiming to disrupt the status quo and achieve outcomes that conventional methods have failed to deliver.

Can you point us to other leaders talking about annexing other countries?

Domestically, the U.S. Constitution allows for the admission of new states or territories. However, this process would require Congressional approval and likely face intense political and legal scrutiny. And For any annexation to be legitimate, it would need recognition from other nations and international bodies.

the question is how did trump mean the annexing , is it diplomatically or military ?

I'm amazed how happy Trump supporters are to say, "Trump is a chaotic liar but I think I know what he's really saying and that it's good". It's equally possible he's telling the truth about annexing and lying about making America great.

I suppose putting things in the best possible light while cherry-picking bits to use is an American Right Christian stock-in-trade. They've had practice.

From hi speech to the nation:

One way or the other, we’re going to get it

And yet how did it go with boris and brexit ?

which then the devil is in the wording as to how people interpret it

How do you interpret it?

Well he’s not having us from Canada and Greenlanders are saying no. Personally I think the US would be much better joining us in Canada - much better quality of life.

Panama won't negotiate either, their president has said the canal belongs to Panama