The Consequences of President Trump’s Innovative Approach to Foreign Policy
We cannot avoid the fact that Trump is achieving some positive results. For example, the US Department of Health and the State Department have announced that the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) that Trump ordered a year ago has now been completed.
Big Pharma tried to keep the US in the WHO because Big Pharma uses the WHO to mandate vaccines such as the Covid one that increases Big Pharma’s profits. The World Health Organization is a globalist organization with the intention of taking health policy out of the hands of sovereign countries and thereby, in the case of democracies, taking health decisions away from the people affected by the decisions. The world has no need to globalize health policy in the hands of an uncountable bureaucracy. A Big Plus for Trump.
The whore media makes certain that whatever Trump does or says is portrayed negatively. With the protests in Minneapolis and Trump’s demands on Denmark and Venezuela, it is an easy task for the whore media. However, there are alternative explanations. For example, there is resistance to the deportation of illegal aliens in other Democrat political jurisdictions, but unlike Minnesota, there are not violent protest interfering with the duty of federal officials as in Minnesota. It is clear enough that it is the left-wing governor and the left-wing mayor of Minneapolis that are promoting and supporting the protests against federal law enforcement. When objects are thrown at federal agents, when they are spit at, cursed and when protesters come armed with guns, the purpose is to raise the stress on the federal agents to the point that their fuse is lit, thereby producing overreaction. But the cause of the overreaction is the Democrat leadership in Minnesota. It is dishonest for the media to limit the blame to Trump.
Trump is developing a new approach to foreign policy which is not yet understood by many people. Instead of conquering territory by military action, Trump’s approach seems to be first to threaten, and then to substitute bribes for the threats with the intention of involving his targets into voluntary or bribed compliance with his agenda. With Putin, Venezuela, Denmark, and the European Union, Trump’s approach seems to be working.
Trump has turned the Ukrainian peace negotiations into a land swap. The deal he has offered Putin is that Putin can have the territory he claims in Ukraine if Putin agrees that Trump can have his claims to Greenland and Venezuela. Trump has offered Denmark a large sum of money that comes to six figures for every citizen of Denmark. The six figure amount per capita means an income stream in perpetuity for every Danish citizen. For the European Union, it means Washington’s continued military protection of Europe.
In Venezuela, the deal is that the current government can stay in power and there will be no further violence toward Venezuela from Washington in exchange for Venezuela sharing its oil with American oil companies. Maduro’s vice president currently serving as president has apparently agreed to the deal as the American all companies reportedly are back in Venezuela.
In these examples, we see a policy by which Trump achieves control of other governments’ territory or resources in a deal that the governments accept and see as profitable for themselves. Instead of spending vast sums of money on military and weapons, Trump spends less and achieves the same ends with bribes and no deaths.
We see the same operation in Trump’s approach to what Zionist call “the Palestinian problem.” Instead of destroying Palestine militarily as Israel is doing, Trump’s plan is to turn Palestine into a resort in place of a country and a people. To acquire the world’s acquisition to disappearing Palestine in this way, Trump has created a Gaza Board of Peace, an Orwellian name, membership to which requires the payment of $1 billion into a fund that will be used to create the resort. apparently 30 countries have been offered memberships and to date many have accepted including it seems Russia. In this way Trump acquires the consent of the important countries to the disappearance of Palestine as a state and a people.
Trump’s innovative, foreign policy approach to purchasing countries instead of conquering them appeals to all except the military-security complex, because the money goes into politicians pockets, instead of into weapons and deaths of soldiers. To appease the military Trump hands out tax-free “warriors’ bonuses.”
Whatever we might think of President Trump and his innovative approach to foreign policy and the resolution of disputes, we should recognize that it has advantages over a military conflict. In a deal, some can benefit more than others, but all benefit and no one needs to die.
The downside of a Trump deal is that the sovereignty of nations becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold. A person can see this as a new form of globalism in which the ruler with the most money and the best deals can establish hegemony over the world.
To conclude, I suggest that we can view Trump as modifying the Wolfowitz Doctrine of American Hegemony. By substituting mutually remunerative deals for military action and for CIA organized color revolutions with Victoria Nuland handing out cookies and choosing the next president of the country, there will be deals, voluntarily entered into with remuneration for accepting the deal.
It is unclear whether all who enter into Trump’s deals comprehend the consequences for themselves. For example, Putin by buying into Trump’s Gaza deal has also purchased Russia’s complicity in the erasure of Palestine and its people. Putin will also have shown himself to BRICS as an American accomplice, thereby reducing the cohesion and trust by members in that organization. The result will be to strengthen the dollar’s role as world reserve currency, thereby leaving the United States with the unique power to sanction other countries.
Those buying into Trump’s Gaza Board of Peace are creating the precedent for eliminating unwanted and problematical countries, along with the existence of their ethnic nationality. In other words, it is a new form of genocide.
Overall, my view, I think, at this time is that Trump’s approach to conquest avoids war, but in the long run it destroys the existence of countries and peoples and the cultures associated with them, and shrivels the diversity on earth.