The US is initiating a new round of sanctions against Russia just days before Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration. This action, occurring in the final hours of the Biden administration, is seen by some as a deliberate attempt to hamstring the incoming president’s ability to pursue friendlier relations with Moscow. The timing is undeniably provocative, raising questions about the motivations behind such a last-minute move.
This flurry of activity comes amid ongoing geopolitical tensions, primarily centered around the conflict in Ukraine. The situation is complex, involving negotiations, demands, and significant disagreements between Russia, Ukraine, and the US. Russia is reportedly seeking guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO, a condition Ukraine is unlikely to accept without a significant withdrawal of Russian troops from occupied territories.… Continue reading
Donald Trump’s incoming administration, through special envoy Keith Kellogg, aims to broker a Ukraine-Russia peace agreement within 100 days of the inauguration, rejecting suggestions that this involves territorial concessions to Russia. Kellogg asserts the goal is to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty, while Trump himself acknowledges Russia’s historical concerns regarding NATO expansion near its borders. This timeline contrasts with Trump’s previous 24-hour claim, and analysts warn that a rushed agreement could undermine Ukrainian democracy and embolden Russia. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy anticipates a “new chapter” with Trump’s presidency.
Read More
President-elect Trump’s recent comments signal a potentially aggressive second term in foreign policy. He openly discussed using military force to reclaim the Panama Canal and Greenland, while threatening economic pressure to annex Canada. Furthermore, he proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico and demanding a significant increase in NATO defense spending. These actions demonstrate a willingness to challenge long-standing alliances and disregard international norms.
Read More
The Trump team’s assertion that the comments regarding Canada, Greenland, and Panama are part of a broader strategy has sparked considerable debate. The suggestion of a cohesive plan immediately raises questions, particularly given the seemingly impulsive nature of the initial statements.
The idea of a comprehensive strategy behind these comments is certainly intriguing. It’s easy to imagine a scenario where these seemingly disparate pronouncements are carefully orchestrated steps toward a larger political goal. Perhaps the comments are designed to test the waters, to gauge public and international reaction before undertaking more significant actions.
However, skepticism abounds. Many find it difficult to reconcile the seemingly erratic and often contradictory pronouncements with the notion of a well-defined plan.… Continue reading
President Zelenskyy met with President-elect Trump in Paris, emphasizing the need for a “just” peace settlement in Ukraine that prevents future Russian aggression. This meeting, facilitated by President Macron, followed a $988 million US military aid package for Ukraine. Despite Trump’s past skepticism towards aid and calls for quick settlements, Zelenskyy expressed gratitude for Trump’s “unwavering resolve,” highlighting the importance of the talks. The discussions also allowed Macron to gauge the direction of a second Trump presidency, given concerns about Trump’s potential shift in US foreign policy.
Read More
President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, along with other national security appointments, signals a significant shift in US foreign policy. Senior military commanders express concern that this “America First” approach, prioritizing deals over alliances, could weaken the US-led global order and jeopardize security commitments to allies like Ukraine and Taiwan. Trump’s transactional worldview, viewing adversaries and allies as equally negotiable, may lead to instability and a new nuclear arms race. This approach, harkening back to pre-World War II isolationism, could have dire consequences in a world increasingly interconnected by global challenges like climate change and cyber threats.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker