Trying to Comprehend Trump's FP
On 22 January 2026, I was on “Judging Freedom” talking to the Judge about events involving Davos and Greenland. In the process, I laid out some of the key elements of my template for understanding Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump's 'foreign policy' seems to be a combination of archetypal standard US-centric memes (i.e. bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran), a few impressions he remembers from past 'mentors', whoever whispered in his ear last and his emotional, delusional reactions to any opposition, all of which seem to be artfully focused and managed by the Klown Kar Kabinet. If you think of the White House as an open-air Care Facility for the mentally/physically infirm and intellectually challenged, you wouldn't be far wrong.
For all the pretence of 'stable genius innovation', Trumpy is following the Agenda set by the Oligarchy when it coincides with his 'interests', but also reacting to the moves by the non-US-centric Oligarchy when they don't support his actions.
We are encouraged to see the puppets and second/third tier oligarchic wanna be's, but the actions and 'influence' of the true power players remain artfully concealed.
The Rothschilds officially began moving assets out of the US$ system in 2016, 'coincidentally' when Hillary lost. That's a MAJOR hedging tactic that the MSM and 'alternative' media doesn't seem to notice. But it hits the MSM when Japan or BRICS+ countries do it.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/rothschild-dumps-us-dollar-for-gold-other-currencies-bitcoin
Of course all the 'alternative media' will, when pressed, mention the euphemistic Deep State, the Donor Class, the Blob, Bilderbergs, WEF, the Masons, Atlantic Council, City of London, Council on Foreign Relations, Fabians etc., but when it comes to stating the obvious Oligarchic players who 'influence' such groups behind the scenes by name... not so much.
Which means the true levers of power are not shown to the public, we only get the Political Kabuki Theatre, of which Trump is an increasingly flawed savant.
NATO Is the Narrative — Not the Cause
For years, the war in Ukraine has been explained as a consequence of NATO expansion. That Russia “felt threatened.” That this was about security guarantees and red lines.
Now the Kremlin has said the quiet part out loud:
Russia will continue the war until the territorial question is resolved only then does diplomacy become meaningful.
That is a decisive moment. Because it reveals what this war is not about.
If this were truly a NATO war, the solution would be obvious:
– force posture limitations
– arms control agreements
– neutrality arrangements
– mutual security guarantees
All of these can be negotiated without moving borders.
But Russia refuses.
Because the goal is not security.
The goal is land.
When Moscow states that no durable peace is possible without a “territorial solution,” it is effectively saying:
👉 Ukraine must give up territory before violence stops.
At that point, NATO is no longer the cause as it is the story.
A story that has been useful:
– to mobilize domestic opinion in Russia
– to sow doubt in Western societies
– to shift responsibility from aggressor to victim
But when the state itself says the war will continue regardless of diplomacy as long as the map does not change, the NATO explanation collapses.
This places the war where it actually belongs:
Not in the category of a “security dilemma,” but in imperial revisionism.
In this worldview:
– borders are provisional
– neighboring states are not fully sovereign
– war is a legitimate political instrument
That is also why Russia can hold talks while escalating militarily.
Because negotiations are not meant to stop the war as they are meant to ratify its outcome.
This is why calls to “freeze the conflict,” pursue “interim arrangements,” or push for “realistic compromises” are so dangerous.
They align perfectly with Russia’s sequencing:
Fight → consolidate → negotiate → legitimize
When we say NATO is the cause, we do more than get it wrong.
We accept a premise in which territorial conquest becomes understandable even negotiable.
Russia has now stated plainly what this war is about.
The question is no longer whether we understand it.
The question is whether we are willing to act accordingly.