Connect with us

International

Trump, Zelensky clash represents seismic shift in world politics

Published

11 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

A meeting which began over a mineral deal and peace in Ukraine has developed into a historic shift in world politics. 

“You don’t hold the cards,” President Donald Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28. 

When Zelensky retorted that he was “not playing,” Trump rebuked him. “Yes. Yes you are. You are gambling with the lives of millions of people.”

 

 

In an exchange which reframed the Ukraine war as a reckless gambit towards nuclear Armageddon, both Trump and Vice President JD Vance signaled an epochal shift away from the global consensus of the last forty years – and towards the interests of peace and of the American people.  

“You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump continued, explaining to Zelensky that “…what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have.” 

 

Friday’s White House meeting between the unelected leader of Ukraine is one of several recent visits and follows that of the U.K.’s Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron. 

Zelensky had nominally arrived to finalize a deal for U.S. rights over Ukrainian minerals, brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The deal was seen as a means of the U.S. recovering some of the claimed 350 billion dollars Trump has said that America has supplied to Ukraine in financial and military aid since February 2022.   

Instead, Zelensky left immediately after being “kicked out” of the White House, the deal unsigned, and with his planned lunch reportedly “given to the interns” by Trump. Fox News reported White House insiders saying Zelensky was “begging to stay,” as a planned joint press conference was canceled.  

Zelensky was congratulated on his “dignity” following the meeting, by the unelected European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen.   

 

Immediate UK summit, ‘boots on the ground?’

Having refused to apologize, Zelensky flew to London for a pre-planned March 1 “summit” of pro-war leaders attended by NATO chief Mark Rutte, EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the leaders of France, Italy and Poland.  

The summit followed a “bizarre” flurry of identical social media posts sent by pro-war European leaders in support of Zelensky.  

Statements were made following the meeting which suggested U.K. and EU support for Ukraine could continue in the absence of U.S. involvement – with the U.K. prime minister announcing afterwards that he is “ready to put boots on the ground” in Ukraine.  

Starmer went on to announce a further $2.2 billion in “loans” to Ukraine to purchase missiles. 

EU plan falls apart

The London Summit claimed to be making progress towards an EU-led ceasefire but concluded with no agreements in place. 

Following the claim by France’s Macron that a truce in Ukraine had been proposed, the U.K. Armed Forces minister told Times Radio Monday morning that “No agreement has been made on what a truce looks like.”

Zelensky told U.K. reporters he was now “ready to sign” the minerals deal agreed with Donald Trump.  

A further meeting has been scheduled. Following the remarks of the U.K’s Starmer, the leaders of France and Poland announced that neither nation would be sending troops to Ukraine – despite the assurances given by Starmer that a EU and U.K. “coalition of the willing” would do so.  

The U.K.’s Ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, appeared to undermine Starmer’s position, calling for all leaders to give “unequivocal backing” of Trump’s initiative. 

As the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reported that Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Putin is being “fast tracked,” news also emerged that Trump is “discussing cutting all military aid to Ukraine,” with the Russians and Hungarians saying “Zelensky does not want peace.”

So severe is the crisis for Zelensky that a former staunch supporter of the proxy war, Senator Lindsey Graham, called for his resignation.  

 

NATO without the US

The U.S. government is pursuing negotiations with the Russians independently of the European and British leadership, whose own summit quietly concluded that any future settlement in Ukraine ultimately relies on the U.S. to guarantee it.  

News now emerges that the U.S. is seeking to reopen the NordStream pipelines in direct talks with the Russians.  

Missiles fired from Ukraine into Russia rely on U.S.-led satellite intelligence and guidance. There is no realistic chance of unilateral military action in Ukraine by Europe’s depleted and scaled back militaries – a position underlined by EU statements calling for comprehensive rebuilding both of European defence and the industry required to restore it to realistic levels. 

The picture emerging is one of a stark reality. There is no NATO absent U.S. commitment, and neither the U.K. nor the EU can act independently of the U.S. to confront a major power.  

This too was foreshadowed on February 28, when Donald Trump asked Keir Starmer, “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?”  

It is a serious question with an obvious answer, and it was followed by laughter. 

Reality has bitten hard this weekend, showing how the U.S. leadership has not merely changed the color of the neckties worn in government, but is pursuing an historic break with decades of U.S. grand strategy. 

British commentator Matt Goodwin said that the meeting signified a far wider geopolitical realignment, suggesting the U.K. and European leadership at the London summit had failed to recognize this historic shift.  

U.K. and European leaders may continue to generate dramatic headlines with bold talk and unrealistic initiatives, but this too is beginning to resemble an attempt to win a media war whilst the battle in reality is lost to them. 

The Trump White House sees the war in Ukraine is seen as a needless waste of human life and money which “should never have happened.” Hungarian President Viktor Orbán also spoke out strongly in favor of peace, adding Ukraine was now in a “dire situation.”

U.S. negotiators now “talk normally” with those of the Russians, after a Biden administration which refused to speak to them at all for several years. 

 

With Trump set to address Congress Tuesday night, an era-defining announcement may be on the cards.  

Those cards are clearly held by the United States and no other nation in its sphere of influence. How will those cards be played? An earlier post by Trump on his Truth Social strongly suggests the U.S. will seek to establish and normalize trade with Russia regardless of the liberal-globalist regimes in Europe – all of whose leadership have invested their political fortunes in the war in Ukraine. 

“We should spend less time worrying about Putin, and more time worrying about migrant rape gangs, drug lords, murderers, and people from mental institutions entering our Country – So that we don’t end up like Europe!” wrote Trump.

This is a direct hit on the British and European governments whose pursuit of the global consensus has led their nations into chaos. Trump is reshaping the world around the recognition of this reality, and of the ruin it has caused. With Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson and Elon Musk already suggesting an audit of all funding to Ukraine, the card of the severe corruption funded by this war may be played soon.   

This moment comes alongside U.S. warnings that the enemy is not outside but within Europe, as its governments suppress free speech and refuse to respect the results of elections. A further scandal looms over how Ukrainian aid was spent, and where the weapons themselves went – with Tucker Carlson and even CBS news reporting that between one and “half” of all military equipment supplied has vanished on to the black market in Ukraine. How far were these pro-war, pro-Zelensky leaders invested in a nation described in the 2021 Pandora Papers as one of the most corrupt in the world? 

There are now two visions of the future of the West, and only one has a winning hand. Tomorrow night, perhaps we shall see another Trump card thrown down.  

You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Americans rallying behind Trump’s tariffs

Published on

The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:

The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.

Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.

This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,

The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.

More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:

Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.

They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,

Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.

They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.

Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).

There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.

But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:

When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.

The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.

If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.

For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.

Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:

Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.

What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.

Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.

Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Kennedy to cut 10,000 HHS employees to reduce ‘bureaucratic sprawl’

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a significant restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday in a move to streamline the huge federal agency and cut costs.

Kennedy plans to trim about 10,000 employees from the agency’s workforce in addition to employees who left as part of a Deferred Resignation Program, similar to a buy out, earlier this year. The move is expected to save about $1.8 billion.

Kennedy said the restructuring won’t affect the agency’s critical services. When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement, the changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees. The restructuring will also align the department with Kennedy’s goals for a healthier U.S. population.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said. “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring of the department’s 28 divisions will get rid of redundant units, consolidating them into “15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy.” Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5.

The overhaul will implement the new “HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring would improve taxpayers’ experience with HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient. He also said the changes would ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain intact.

The Administration for a Healthy America will combine multiple agencies – the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — into a single, unified entity, Kennedy said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will get the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which is responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response.

“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy said. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves.”

Among the cuts: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will shed about 3,500 full-time employees. Officials said the reduction won’t affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. The CDC will drop about 2,400 employees. The National Institutes of Health will cut about 1,200 employees. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will cut about 300 employees. The reorganization won’t affect Medicare and Medicaid services, officials said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X