[Benjamin]

It’s very clear now Trump doesn’t want it for security. But he’s now causing a bigger rift between USA and Europe, along with many other countries. Sadly, the world has to deal with him for another 3 years.

[MTVN]

So Trump is now slapping tariffs on his closest allies because they disagree with him on this. I've always liked Trump but I don't like him thinking he can bully European and NATO countries into doing what he wants. Show some respect for your allies - we have been significant powers in global affairs a lot longer than the US has. And we've experienced much worse than a few extra percentage points on US tariffs

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

It’s very clear now Trump doesn’t want it for security. But he’s now causing a bigger rift between USA and Europe, along with many other countries. Sadly, the world has to deal with him for another 3 years.

Originally Posted by MTVN

So Trump is now slapping tariffs on his closest allies because they disagree with him on this. I've always liked Trump but I don't like him thinking he can bully European and NATO countries into doing what he wants. Show some respect for your allies - we have been significant powers in global affairs a lot longer than the US has. And we've experienced much worse than a few extra percentage points on US tariffs

I've given up trying to figure out the true motive at every step when it comes to these things, but I think that we've been increasingly decoupling our international policy from other ally/neighbors for some time now. That could mean there are other things in the works behind the scenes that we're looking at doing in the future (maybe within this decade).

Trump is maybe expressing loudly the rhetoric of intelligence agencies and military experts based on whatever they are advertising to him, since he's so skilled at keeping things under the wraps and not telecasting his plans everywhere. So what they are probably whispering to him behind the scenes might be useful in that he's saying it pretty much as things might occur and doing it this way can assist a larger motive. It's also giving him credit which is what every politician is most concerned with when the moves are "good". It's always been America first from everything I've personally seen from how behind the scenes folk are and so I'm not so easily convinced our "allies" will simply be so surprised by our stance. They can pretend to keep the peace, but a change could've been obvious for some time and now that it's happened, they'll be forced to respond to it. For example, many of the motions we make between intelligence and military tend to have begun well before it's come to fruition. So what we do can't just be seen as "what each administration wants to have done". POTUS may want to approach plans differently and his job is to orchestrate our "goals" as the face of the nation. He may not be willing to go along with some things, but that's not to say that politicians aren't intentionally shown things that won't force their hand. After all, politicians fickle at heart, easily spooked and generally prefer quick results that ease their concerns.

I did have a nice giggle at this, whether it's a true context or not:

[Cherie]

Bet Keir wishes he had torn up the Kings invitation now

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Maru

I've given up trying to figure out the true motive at every step when it comes to these things, but I think that we've been increasingly decoupling our international policy from other ally/neighbors for some time now. That could mean there are other things in the works behind the scenes that we're looking at doing in the future (maybe within this decade).

Trump is maybe expressing loudly the rhetoric of intelligence agencies and military experts based on whatever they are advertising to him, since he's so skilled at keeping things under the wraps and not telecasting his plans everywhere. So what they are probably whispering to him behind the scenes might be useful in that he's saying it pretty much as things might occur and doing it this way can assist a larger motive. It's also giving him credit which is what every politician is most concerned with when the moves are "good". It's always been America first from everything I've personally seen from how behind the scenes folk are and so I'm not so easily convinced our "allies" will simply be so surprised by our stance. They can pretend to keep the peace, but a change could've been obvious for some time and now that it's happened, they'll be forced to respond to it. For example, many of the motions we make between intelligence and military tend to have begun well before it's come to fruition. So what we do can't just be seen as "what each administration wants to have done". POTUS may want to approach plans differently and his job is to orchestrate our "goals" as the face of the nation. He may not be willing to go along with some things, but that's not to say that politicians aren't intentionally shown things that won't force their hand. After all, politicians fickle at heart, easily spooked and generally prefer quick results that ease their concerns.

I did have a nice giggle at this, whether it's a true context or not:

Your analysis is probably largely correct but on the BIB I definitely think this will have surprised our government. Starmer has been at pains to be on good terms with Trump and thinks their relationship, and the fact he has secured a more positive trading relationship than the EU, is one of the biggest wins of his government. This destroys most of that

[Maru]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Your analysis is probably largely correct but on the BIB I definitely think this will have surprised our government. Starmer has been at pains to be on good terms with Trump and thinks their relationship, and the fact he has secured a more positive trading relationship than the EU, is one of the biggest wins of his government. This destroys most of that

I wouldn't say it's an analysis, more that I do know a little bit about operationally how our government "thinks" based on things I've heard and seen (and well, there's also our history...) and so can see other possibilities.

Trump has been a very hostile ally to the UK, imo, but he's been a hostile ally to virtually all his "friends". Remember, intelligence was cut to the US and I think even before then we were leaving UK out of the loop on a number of things. There's also the comments from folk here about controversies that are occurring in the UK and the fact we hosted Farage to come and testify at Congress... a bit weird for any ally to do that with the govt's opposition.

[arista]

10% Tarrif on us

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

10% Tarrif on us

…until 1 June and raising to 25% tariff then until the deal is reached for his purchase of Greenland…

[bots]

i don't think europe were caught off guard by trumps greenland intentions, he told everyone in his last term he wanted it. I think they didn't want to believe it because of the likely consequences for the security of europe. Sweden and Germany both have active nuclear weapons programs now. All the advanced countries in europe will follow their lead.

No one trusts America any more, elections may never happen there again. America are more comfortable with Putin as a friend. The world is ****ed

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bots

i don't think europe were caught off guard by trumps greenland intentions, he told everyone in his last term he wanted it. I think they didn't want to believe it because of the likely consequences for the security of europe. Sweden and Germany both have active nuclear weapons programs now. All the advanced countries in europe will follow their lead.

No one trusts America any more, elections may never happen there again. America are more comfortable with Putin as a friend. The world is ****ed

…yeah that’s all true, who would have predicted that the US would become such an enemy of the Western World under Trump’s unpredictable dictatorship…

[Maru]

Trump's Greenland tariff squeeze detonates Europe trade deal as NATO is pushed to breaking point
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Greenland.html

The European Union is set to block a US trade deal after Donald Trump announced he was imposing tariffs on eight countries for supporting Greenland.

President of the European People's Party (EPP) Manfred Weber, the European Parliament's largest political group, said on Saturday that an agreement with the US was no longer possible.

In a post to X, Weber said: 'The EPP is in favor of the EU–U.S. trade deal, but given Donald Trump's threats regarding Greenland, approval is not possible at this stage. The 0% tariffs on U.S. products must be put on hold.'

His post came after Trump threatened eight European countries with tariffs if they fail to capitulate and allow him to acquire Greenland from Denmark.

The EU trade agreement, struck last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, still requires a rubber stamp from the parliament.

[bots]

NATO will need to be reformed excluding the USA. The ramifications are enormous

[Maru]

I'm going around and checking the coverage through common outlets. Mainly CNN/DM online are going to be the most common and popular sources of the ones I've looked at that are featuring this story prominently. The others are DC papers/DC-based websites that aren't as popular for normal Americans but of course it's being covered. It's not in the fold on Fox News website funnily enough. I don't have Cable TV so I can't check what they're saying.

On IP TV where people without antennas or Cable can follow local/affiliates through streaming devices, FoxNow (Fox News Localish affiliate) is talking about Iran. ABC local is on for our city, albiet they're before the others (5pm vs 4pm) and they're talking about Trump's healthcare plan. CBS Local is talking about Social Security. Now they're talking about Jerome Powell and how it will affect us (our money). The Hill's channel is talking about the State Department and VISAs. Now they're talking about Austin's LEO policies re: ICE. BBC US News is talking about mega rockets to the Moon, but Greenland/NATO are on the sidebar and in the chyron on rotation prominently enough.

ABC DC Local affiliate is talking about winter activities for kids lol.

NYPost doesn't appear to have it in their fold (the portion of the website that most people see first). NYTimes does (an obvious one). Reuters does (international news outlet so that makes sense). NPR doesn't (!) as I had to scroll to find it. MS Now does, though it's more subdued in terms of headlines than the DM.

A lot of people can easily miss this development imo, but maybe it will hit Primetime news. I just thought that was interesting.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

NATO will need to be reformed excluding the USA. The ramifications are enormous

I don't think we even want to be in NATO anymore, if I'm honest.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

I don't think we even want to be in NATO anymore, if I'm honest.

I think that's why Trump is doing this. He wants the allies to do something so he doesn't get the stick for it. I think they will just create a new organisation that doesnt include the USA and do it quietly behind the scenes.

The most interesting part is the UK/US alliance which has been so close since ww2. Starmer is going to have to be incredibly diplomatic