What did I actually say about Trump’s negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded “Art of the Deal”)? “Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here.”
bc, you did indeed say that. But what you said immediately before was ambiguous:
I’ve been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn’t prodding, it’s the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal.
That suggests that this (the Trump approach) is a strategy to get a better bargaining position, or deal. So it looks like you think that although it may not work, the strategy is not actually aimed at takeover.
I understand the wish to see it (and the current US approach in general) as something rational in intent. I too have had a tendency to do this in the past, perhaps because it is too uncomfortable to think that leaders are behaving in quite such a crazy or out-of-control manner. But, in the case of DJT, this is truly just sane-washing. And it is consistent with your approach to this administration in general; you do not approve of Trump's "behaviour", but you approve of (or rationalise) his intent. And people doing that about someone like him leads, for example, from "it is reasonable to take steps to deport criminal illegal immigrants" to armed groups of ICE agents swarming US cities against states' wishes, detaining mainly US citizens and illegal immigrants who overwhelmingly have committed no criminal offences, mistreating and in some cases killing them. And similarly, the Trump approach to Greenland could end in breaking up NATO, a result that no US administration of any stripe has wanted.
I wanted to be fair to your view about the Greenland issue by posting that link with the interview by Freddie Sayers of Helen Thompson, Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl, because they are well-qualified to put all this in an accurate historical context long pre-dating Trump, and ignoring his specific rhetoric and approach. And I think that this is valuable and important.
But expressing more conservative views here, much as many of us favour hearing them, while also implicitly excusing Trump's egregious and dangerous behaviour, is bound to come up against fierce opposition. The people commenting here accurately foretold what his first term would be like, and are once again in the devastating Cassandra-like position of watching while his second term proceeds to (as someone said to me at lunch today) "not only tear apart America, but also the world".
Donald Trump, J D Vance, Steven Miller, RFKJnr, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi etc etc: are these people who you are content to see representing your country and your political views?
3 weeks ago
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
3 weeks ago
Good to be reminded that there is an agreement in place between the US and Denmark from 1916, when Denmark sold their Virgin Islands to the US, in which the US recognises Danish sovereignty over Greenland. However, in fairness to bc, the following interviews do give an interesting (and not Trump-positive) view of the world geo-political issues:
Freddie Sayers speaks with author and Cambridge professor Helen Thompson, economist Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl about the Trump administration's escalating rhetoric and strategic moves to acquire Greenland. Covering the historical legal underpinnings of Danish sovereignty while analysing modern geopolitical drivers such as the Monroe Doctrine, Arctic militarisation, and the essential role of the region in a new space race for strategic security dominance, they explore how the Greenland situation is symptomatic of a profound breakdown in trust between Washington and Western Europe, with the administration increasingly viewing European leadership as obstructive political rivals in a shifting global order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuCswB2RLI&t=3s
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump's approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal. Quite apart from what russell correctly says about the book of that title, one should never forget that regarding Trump as such a master of deal-making is pretty deluded given his financial history (until, that is, the advent of enthusiastically embraced presidential corruption), not to mention his absurd claims to have ended several wars which make him, understandably, an international laughing stock. The laugh may well be on the rest of the world, however; that's a risk when you elect a Caligula-type figure.
3 weeks ago
Gift link from today's NYT about their interview with Trump
President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
3 weeks ago
Deleted when I found out how to edit!
3 weeks ago
bc: a lot of people here said "he", and I had always tried before to say s/he, so it was a move against assumptions. Thank you for confirming.
“Danish longer than the United States has existed,” that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation. There is no possible current geopolitical reality which could require its military occupation.
Why is that not enough?
It is enough for security, so why is there still talk about the US "needing" Greenland? Could it be that the real reason is more to do with, for example, rare earths, and/or Trump's desire to be a POTUS who "acquired" a territory larger than Louisiana and Alaska?
You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are, it's hard to know what to say to you. And further to which, pretty much everyone I know and read agrees that the other NATO countries were far too slow to ramp up their funding, albeit they are doing so now.
If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don’t.
I don't, and I rather doubt anyone here does either. Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the "McKinney Trap" of assuming that the commentariat here are supporters of the CCP?
And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it.
I'm tempted to say "oh you sweet summer child". It's almost as if you haven't been observing the Trump administration in action, and not only in their foreign adventures. Is there any innocent explanation for their behaviour that you would consider meets the definition of "sane-washing", and how it enables normalisation of morally, legally and practically unwise and unacceptable behaviour?
3 weeks ago
tarred by association with the horrific thugs Trump, Noem, and Miller have recruited and unleashed
russell upthread is right. These people are a cancer on the nation.
3 weeks ago
Their president of course. Eyes give fake news.
3 weeks ago
Further to our earlier discussion about Fiona Hill's testimony, this is from a new piece by Anne Applebaum in the Atlantic yesterday headlined "Trump's 'American Dominance' May Leave us with Nothing". Gift link to the whole article follows.
Back in 2019, Fiona Hill, a National Security Council official in the first Trump administration, testified to a House committee that Russians pushing the creation of spheres of influence had been offering to somehow “swap” Venezuela, their closest ally in Latin America, for Ukraine. Since then, the notion that international relations should promote great-power dominance, not universal values or networks of allies, has spread from Moscow to Washington. The administration’s new National Security Strategy outlines a plan to dominate the Americas, enigmatically describing U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere as “Enlist and Expand,” and downplaying threats from China and Russia. Trump has also issued threats to Denmark, Panama, and Canada, all allies whose sovereignty we now challenge.
Oh my God, you think nothing this administration does can still shock you, and then you see this in today's NYT:
On the fifth anniversary of the pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol, the Trump administration created a new page on the official White House website that represented the president’s most brazen bid yet to rewrite the history of the Jan. 6 riot with false claims aimed at absolving him of responsibility. The site blames Capitol Police officers, who defended lawmakers that day, for starting the assault; Democrats, who were the rioters’ main targets, for failing to prevent it; and former Vice President Mike Pence, who rejected falsehoods about the 2020 election, for allowing the results to be certified.
3 weeks ago
bc, I’m glad your reasoning has more to do with conditions in Venezuela than with your trust in the current administration.
I'm hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed. Not to mention that 85% of the Greenland population (which is 56,000) have rejected the suggestion that they should be part of the USA. And an opinion about the comments by Steven Miller about this issue would also be welcome.
3 weeks ago
By the way, I see people have edited their comments, but I don' t know how to. Can anyone explain?
3 weeks ago
And for anyone who wants to listen to (or read a transcript of) a conversation between David Frum and Anne Applebaum on the Venezuela story, this is a gift link from the Atlantic. It's a couple of days old - I always wait for transcript because that's how I prefer to take in my information and media if possible:
As I've said before, I'm interested in what saner and more clear-sighted rightwingers think of Trump's adventures, and as far as I know nobody has ever accused Anne Applebaum of being any kind of lefty!
Apart from that, the only thing we haven't mentioned is the much quoted opinion going round that the reason Trump did not instal María Corina Machado as president given that she won the last election is that she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, and didn't immediately say "I can't take it, it should be President Trump's". She came to her senses afterwards, but it was too late. Again, no "basis in fact".
3 weeks ago
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap
Her testimony was in 2019, and she left her job with Trump 10 days before his famous "perfect" phone conversation with Zelensky unsuccessfully seeking help against Biden. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Trump has "mystifyingly" favoured Russia over Ukraine at almost every point, and has now invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its appalling president, while claiming the US is "running" Venezuela.
Citing her testimony to say “Trump got the idea from the Russians” has no basis in fact.
Hmm. An interesting observation.
And what Ambassador Ken Fairfax actually said was "It's interesting that Russia withdrew all of its personnel from Venezuela exactly 14 days before Trump's invasion. China didn't withdraw their personnel. Cuba didn't withdraw theirs. Just Russia. It is almost as if someone called Putin to warn him what's up as part of a quid pro quo. Not almost."
To quote Monty Python, "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat". Or, to put it in a more pedestrian fashion "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
3 weeks ago
And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump's first impeachment in 2019. She is a deeply impressive person who had been at the time Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council.
Just make a search box, and enter "Venezuela", and it goes straight there, including Ukraine. Adam Silverman is right, and so is nous. To have US patsies for Putin in position to be manipulated by him into breaching international law, and talk about taking the territory of NATO allies, is a truly extraordinary development. O brave new world, that has such American politicians in it!
3 weeks ago
nous: an excellent reminder from Adam Silverman. I should check BJ more often...
4 weeks ago
Jesus. This from David Frum's piece in the Atlantic today, lands sinisterly:
Because the anti-Trump side is preoccupied with domestic politics, it sometimes overlooks how Trump is corroding American leadership in the world. The Venezuelan regime is broadly unpopular in Latin America; its socialism of plunder has sent millions of desperate people into Colombia and other states. But U.S. intervention is deeply mistrusted in the region, associated much more closely with bringing dictators to power than with toppling them. The administration could have courted greater legitimacy for its actions by cooperating with regional partners, such as Colombia and Brazil, which have both tangled with the Maduro regime in the recent past. Refusing such cooperation is not merely an incidental vice of Trump’s foreign policy. That vice is at its core. Military action in Venezuela today without allies may prefigure action tomorrow against allies—for example, to invade and annex Greenland. The big strategic idea of the second Trump administration is that major powers are entitled to dominate their neighbors: Russia to dominate Ukraine, China to dominate its neighborhood, and the U.S. to rule over Venezuela, Greenland, Panama, and ultimately Canada—Trump’s desired “51st state.”
David Frum's politics are not mine, but I am determined to keep an eye on rational rightwingers, in case they ever have any influence on the GOP (hard to see at this point). If anybody wants the full piece, just let me know.
What did I actually say about Trump’s negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded “Art of the Deal”)?
“Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here.”
bc, you did indeed say that. But what you said immediately before was ambiguous:
I’ve been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn’t prodding, it’s the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal.
That suggests that this (the Trump approach) is a strategy to get a better bargaining position, or deal. So it looks like you think that although it may not work, the strategy is not actually aimed at takeover.
I understand the wish to see it (and the current US approach in general) as something rational in intent. I too have had a tendency to do this in the past, perhaps because it is too uncomfortable to think that leaders are behaving in quite such a crazy or out-of-control manner. But, in the case of DJT, this is truly just sane-washing. And it is consistent with your approach to this administration in general; you do not approve of Trump's "behaviour", but you approve of (or rationalise) his intent. And people doing that about someone like him leads, for example, from "it is reasonable to take steps to deport criminal illegal immigrants" to armed groups of ICE agents swarming US cities against states' wishes, detaining mainly US citizens and illegal immigrants who overwhelmingly have committed no criminal offences, mistreating and in some cases killing them. And similarly, the Trump approach to Greenland could end in breaking up NATO, a result that no US administration of any stripe has wanted.
I wanted to be fair to your view about the Greenland issue by posting that link with the interview by Freddie Sayers of Helen Thompson, Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl, because they are well-qualified to put all this in an accurate historical context long pre-dating Trump, and ignoring his specific rhetoric and approach. And I think that this is valuable and important.
But expressing more conservative views here, much as many of us favour hearing them, while also implicitly excusing Trump's egregious and dangerous behaviour, is bound to come up against fierce opposition. The people commenting here accurately foretold what his first term would be like, and are once again in the devastating Cassandra-like position of watching while his second term proceeds to (as someone said to me at lunch today) "not only tear apart America, but also the world".
Donald Trump, J D Vance, Steven Miller, RFKJnr, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi etc etc: are these people who you are content to see representing your country and your political views?
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
Good to be reminded that there is an agreement in place between the US and Denmark from 1916, when Denmark sold their Virgin Islands to the US, in which the US recognises Danish sovereignty over Greenland. However, in fairness to bc, the following interviews do give an interesting (and not Trump-positive) view of the world geo-political issues:
Freddie Sayers speaks with author and Cambridge professor Helen Thompson, economist Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl about the Trump administration's escalating rhetoric and strategic moves to acquire Greenland. Covering the historical legal underpinnings of Danish sovereignty while analysing modern geopolitical drivers such as the Monroe Doctrine, Arctic militarisation, and the essential role of the region in a new space race for strategic security dominance, they explore how the Greenland situation is symptomatic of a profound breakdown in trust between Washington and Western Europe, with the administration increasingly viewing European leadership as obstructive political rivals in a shifting global order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuCswB2RLI&t=3s
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump's approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal. Quite apart from what russell correctly says about the book of that title, one should never forget that regarding Trump as such a master of deal-making is pretty deluded given his financial history (until, that is, the advent of enthusiastically embraced presidential corruption), not to mention his absurd claims to have ended several wars which make him, understandably, an international laughing stock. The laugh may well be on the rest of the world, however; that's a risk when you elect a Caligula-type figure.
Gift link from today's NYT about their interview with Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html?unlocked_article_code=1.C1A.Jn36.S3vByKtmLaG4&smid=url-share
President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Deleted when I found out how to edit!
bc: a lot of people here said "he", and I had always tried before to say s/he, so it was a move against assumptions. Thank you for confirming.
“Danish longer than the United States has existed,” that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation. There is no possible current geopolitical reality which could require its military occupation.
Why is that not enough?
It is enough for security, so why is there still talk about the US "needing" Greenland? Could it be that the real reason is more to do with, for example, rare earths, and/or Trump's desire to be a POTUS who "acquired" a territory larger than Louisiana and Alaska?
You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are, it's hard to know what to say to you. And further to which, pretty much everyone I know and read agrees that the other NATO countries were far too slow to ramp up their funding, albeit they are doing so now.
If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don’t.
I don't, and I rather doubt anyone here does either. Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the "McKinney Trap" of assuming that the commentariat here are supporters of the CCP?
And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it.
I'm tempted to say "oh you sweet summer child". It's almost as if you haven't been observing the Trump administration in action, and not only in their foreign adventures. Is there any innocent explanation for their behaviour that you would consider meets the definition of "sane-washing", and how it enables normalisation of morally, legally and practically unwise and unacceptable behaviour?
tarred by association with the horrific thugs Trump, Noem, and Miller have recruited and unleashed
russell upthread is right. These people are a cancer on the nation.
Their president of course. Eyes give fake news.
Further to our earlier discussion about Fiona Hill's testimony, this is from a new piece by Anne Applebaum in the Atlantic yesterday headlined "Trump's 'American Dominance' May Leave us with Nothing". Gift link to the whole article follows.
Back in 2019, Fiona Hill, a National Security Council official in the first Trump administration, testified to a House committee that Russians pushing the creation of spheres of influence had been offering to somehow “swap” Venezuela, their closest ally in Latin America, for Ukraine. Since then, the notion that international relations should promote great-power dominance, not universal values or networks of allies, has spread from Moscow to Washington. The administration’s new National Security Strategy outlines a plan to dominate the Americas, enigmatically describing U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere as “Enlist and Expand,” and downplaying threats from China and Russia. Trump has also issued threats to Denmark, Panama, and Canada, all allies whose sovereignty we now challenge.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trumps-american-dominance-may-leave-us-with-nothing/685503/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCchlIvK22pg7_84-w9eIkzs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Oh my God, you think nothing this administration does can still shock you, and then you see this in today's NYT:
On the fifth anniversary of the pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol, the Trump administration created a new page on the official White House website that represented the president’s most brazen bid yet to rewrite the history of the Jan. 6 riot with false claims aimed at absolving him of responsibility.
The site blames Capitol Police officers, who defended lawmakers that day, for starting the assault; Democrats, who were the rioters’ main targets, for failing to prevent it; and former Vice President Mike Pence, who rejected falsehoods about the 2020 election, for allowing the results to be certified.
bc, I’m glad your reasoning has more to do with conditions in Venezuela than with your trust in the current administration.
I'm hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed. Not to mention that 85% of the Greenland population (which is 56,000) have rejected the suggestion that they should be part of the USA. And an opinion about the comments by Steven Miller about this issue would also be welcome.
By the way, I see people have edited their comments, but I don' t know how to. Can anyone explain?
And for anyone who wants to listen to (or read a transcript of) a conversation between David Frum and Anne Applebaum on the Venezuela story, this is a gift link from the Atlantic. It's a couple of days old - I always wait for transcript because that's how I prefer to take in my information and media if possible:
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/david-frum-show-bonus-venezuela/685492/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCZ27BPAKdMsjTztCEaEK_K4&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
As I've said before, I'm interested in what saner and more clear-sighted rightwingers think of Trump's adventures, and as far as I know nobody has ever accused Anne Applebaum of being any kind of lefty!
Apart from that, the only thing we haven't mentioned is the much quoted opinion going round that the reason Trump did not instal María Corina Machado as president given that she won the last election is that she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, and didn't immediately say "I can't take it, it should be President Trump's". She came to her senses afterwards, but it was too late. Again, no "basis in fact".
Her testimony was not that the Trump Administration was actually considering a Ukraine/Venezuela swap
Her testimony was in 2019, and she left her job with Trump 10 days before his famous "perfect" phone conversation with Zelensky unsuccessfully seeking help against Biden. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Trump has "mystifyingly" favoured Russia over Ukraine at almost every point, and has now invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its appalling president, while claiming the US is "running" Venezuela.
Citing her testimony to say “Trump got the idea from the Russians” has no basis in fact.
Hmm. An interesting observation.
And what Ambassador Ken Fairfax actually said was "It's interesting that Russia withdrew all of its personnel from Venezuela exactly 14 days before Trump's invasion. China didn't withdraw their personnel. Cuba didn't withdraw theirs. Just Russia. It is almost as if someone called Putin to warn him what's up as part of a quid pro quo. Not almost."
To quote Monty Python, "a nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat". Or, to put it in a more pedestrian fashion "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
This ignores the testimony of Fiona Hill during the hearings for Trump's first impeachment in 2019. She is a deeply impressive person who had been at the time Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
Just make a search box, and enter "Venezuela", and it goes straight there, including Ukraine. Adam Silverman is right, and so is nous. To have US patsies for Putin in position to be manipulated by him into breaching international law, and talk about taking the territory of NATO allies, is a truly extraordinary development. O brave new world, that has such American politicians in it!
nous: an excellent reminder from Adam Silverman. I should check BJ more often...
Jesus. This from David Frum's piece in the Atlantic today, lands sinisterly:
Because the anti-Trump side is preoccupied with domestic politics, it sometimes overlooks how Trump is corroding American leadership in the world. The Venezuelan regime is broadly unpopular in Latin America; its socialism of plunder has sent millions of desperate people into Colombia and other states. But U.S. intervention is deeply mistrusted in the region, associated much more closely with bringing dictators to power than with toppling them. The administration could have courted greater legitimacy for its actions by cooperating with regional partners, such as Colombia and Brazil, which have both tangled with the Maduro regime in the recent past. Refusing such cooperation is not merely an incidental vice of Trump’s foreign policy. That vice is at its core. Military action in Venezuela today without allies may prefigure action tomorrow against allies—for example, to invade and annex Greenland. The big strategic idea of the second Trump administration is that major powers are entitled to dominate their neighbors: Russia to dominate Ukraine, China to dominate its neighborhood, and the U.S. to rule over Venezuela, Greenland, Panama, and ultimately Canada—Trump’s desired “51st state.”
David Frum's politics are not mine, but I am determined to keep an eye on rational rightwingers, in case they ever have any influence on the GOP (hard to see at this point). If anybody wants the full piece, just let me know.