I doubt rhe repulsive Trump regime actually bring us any closer to World War Iii but they signal a green light to Russia and China to also act as unlawfully as they see fit in with such as elements of the former Soviet Union and Chinese Taipei.
Suits them all and not a lot anyone else can do about if. Or that each of the horrible 3 will do about each other.
FWIW ( very little really in the grand scheme of the awful effect on so many people's lives ), if Trump was to follow through by force on Greenland in the next 4 months or so, I would expect Denmark ( which aleady has separate issues with FIFA ) to boycott the FIFA World Cup and I would hope that all the other UEFA countries at least would follow suit. But ultimately he would no doubt get away with it politically and militarily.
I think invading Greenland would tear NATO and Europe apart, which ultimately seems to be his aim. US of A is returning to the Wild West culture. Hopeful it wont bring on WW3, only because there is too much money at stake. With Trump a that is all that matters. Not environmental impact, morals and values just dirty dollars. Rant over!
there are signs though that his own electorate are no longer as supportive as they were (as in MAGA supporting folks) and some of his own former accolytes are turning. With luck, it will be about riding out this next couple of years, ensuring he finds no way to get another term (and he is going to be an older man when that comes about anyway) and hoping the next person in is more moderate and more diplomatic, whichever ever party they come from.
He wont take Greenland by force - this is bullying, makes lots of big noise and threats and then use it to leverage something acceptable. He will either buy it or get full military access rights and some sort of mineral rights deal and that will see him off in due course. It is all about the money.
So, a client of mine, a European pharmaceutical company, had a staff
Member have their entry to the US cancelled last week at the border. This was in North Carolina. Not sure of reasons but he hadnt done anything wrong. The company has decided it will no longer have its staff travel to the US for the foreseeable future.
So, Trump is saying I want the land of one of my allies, and if my other allies oppose it I will threaten and co-erce and bully them. Hes basically saying that no one is my ally and I will get whatever I want, whenever I want it.
Do the American lawmakers in congress or even in his administration actually support this approach? Is this not deranged behaviour? If not deranged, narcissistic, megalomaniac behaviour?
More unhinged by the day - it seems non-stop just now.
Aside from Greenland and his linking, in an absurd message to the Norwegian PM, of not been awarded the Nobel Peace prize by Norway ( as he keeps putting it ) to some of his proposed actions:
In response to a reporter's question about President Macron saying that he won't be joining Trump's ""Board of Peace" initiative ( and it's already dodgy make-up - my comment, not Macron's ).
"Did he say that? Well nobody wants him because he will be out of office very soon.
I'll put a 200% tariff on his wine and Champaign and he'll join. but he doesn't have to".
So again, the what has become the norm from him previously unprecedented undiplomatic language about another leader ( and supposed ally ) and presumably a bad joke about the 200% tariff ( though who knows with him ) but at least inappropriate given the ongoing tariffs furore.
Turning to the UK ( among others in his latest deranged spree of rants on his Truth (sic) Social ), regarding the UK's ( "Shockingly, our "brilliant NATO ally ... ) plan to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The US has previously backed the deal, which keeps the UK base under a 99 year lease, with the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, calling it a "monumental achievement".
"an act of GREAT STUPIDITY": and done "FOR NO REASON WHATEVER"
The Chief Secretary to the PM is quoted as saying. "It's not normal for geopolitical discussions to be handled in this way".
Mate, everyone is having to deal with the "not normal", unhinged, whatever one wants to call it.
Gawd knows what's coming next.
PS: While writing this in Costa, I became aware of 3 guys at the next table involved in a big discussion about not say football, but some of these latest Trump moves, including also ICE's Minneapolis shooting of Renee Good and the administration's precipitave reaction and FBI "investigation".
I see Var thinking in an Australian Open thread that she'd be better concentrating on the tennis rather than getting diverted by US actions. Probably a good idea - how's the tennis and football going?
-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 20th of January 2026 12:12:12 PM
More unhinged by the day - it seems non-stop just now.
Aside from Greenland and his linking, in an absurd message to the Norwegian PM, of not been awarded the Nobel Peace prize by Norway ( as he keeps putting it ) to some of his proposed actions:
In response to a reporter's question about President Macron saying that he won't be joining Trump's ""Board of Peace" initiative ( and it's already dodgy make-up - my comment, not Macron's ).
"Did he say that? Well nobody wants him because he will be out of office very soon.
I'll put a 200% tariff on his wine and Champaign and he'll join. but he doesn't have to".
So again, the what has become the norm from him previously unprecedented undiplomatic language about another leader ( and supposed ally ) and presumably a bad joke about the 200% tariff ( though who knows with him ) but at least inappropriate given the ongoing tariffs furore.
Turning to the UK ( among others in his latest deranged spree of rants on his Truth (sic) Social ), regarding the UK's ( "Shockingly, our "brilliant NATO ally ... ) plan to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The US has previously backed the deal, which keeps the UK base under a 99 year lease, with the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, calling it a "monumental achievement".
"an act of GREAT STUPIDITY": and done "FOR NO REASON WHATEVER"
The Chief Secretary to the PM is quoted as saying. "It's not normal for geopolitical discussions to be handled in this way".
Mate, everyone is having to deal with the "not normal", unhinged, whatever one wants to call it.
Gawd knows what's coming next.
PS: While writing this in Costa, I became aware of 3 guys at the next table involved in a big discussion about not say football, but some of these latest Trump moves, including also ICE's Minneapolis shooting of Renee Good and the administration's precipitave reaction and FBI "investigation".
I see Var thinking in an Australian Open thread that she'd be better concentrating on the tennis rather than getting diverted by US actions. Probably a good idea - how's the tennis and football going?
-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 20th of January 2026 12:12:12 PM
Re the Chagos deal - Trumps administration actually signed off on it / approved it as a deal not long after he took power this time around. Its non sensical.
I mentioned my clients staff member above. I personally wouldnt like or plan to travel to the USA right now; certainly not on holiday and probably not on business.
"Special relationship"? What "special relationship"?
Put aside any negative feelings you may harbour for Prince Harry (I've not a lot of time for him myself) & give him at least some credit for this:
In 2001, Nato invoked Article 5 for the first - and only - time in history. It meant that every allied nation was obliged to stand with the United States in Afghanistan, in pursuit of our shared security. Allies answered that call.
I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there. The United Kingdom alone had 457 service personnel killed.
Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost.
Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace.
"Special relationship"? What "special relationship"?
Put aside any negative feelings you may harbour for Prince Harry (I've not a lot of time for him myself) & give him at least some credit for this:
In 2001, Nato invoked Article 5 for the first - and only - time in history. It meant that every allied nation was obliged to stand with the United States in Afghanistan, in pursuit of our shared security. Allies answered that call.
I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there. The United Kingdom alone had 457 service personnel killed.
Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost.
Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace.
Was great to see Starmer, in his own time admittedly, call these horrific Trump remarks for what they were. Trump steadily uniting all sorts of folk.
Helmand Province, out of the front line?! ( but doubt Trump has much clue of the details, just how offensive can he be ... ) Whatever one thinks of the Afghan campaign, never have anything but respect for all who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice ( or as Harry says had their lives changed forever ) including the Danes who lost a greater portion of their troops than any NATO nation.
"Special relationship"? What "special relationship"?
Put aside any negative feelings you may harbour for Prince Harry (I've not a lot of time for him myself) & give him at least some credit for this:
In 2001, Nato invoked Article 5 for the first - and only - time in history. It meant that every allied nation was obliged to stand with the United States in Afghanistan, in pursuit of our shared security. Allies answered that call.
I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there. The United Kingdom alone had 457 service personnel killed.
Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost.
Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace.
Just to summarise the Trump remarks in an interview with Fox News which provoked the latest backlash:
We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan... and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.
The tosser also had the gall to say that he was "not sure" that the military alliance would be there for the US "if we ever needed them".
"Special relationship"? What "special relationship"?
Put aside any negative feelings you may harbour for Prince Harry (I've not a lot of time for him myself) & give him at least some credit for this:
In 2001, Nato invoked Article 5 for the first - and only - time in history. It meant that every allied nation was obliged to stand with the United States in Afghanistan, in pursuit of our shared security. Allies answered that call.
I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there. The United Kingdom alone had 457 service personnel killed.
Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost.
Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace.
Just to summarise the Trump remarks in an interview with Fox News which provoked the latest backlash:
We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan... and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.
The tosser also had the gall to say that he was "not sure" that the military alliance would be there for the US "if we ever needed them".