Is Trump correct to bemoan the fact that despite so many years and so many commitments, no NATO Allied country, not even England, Germany or France has been able, or willing to pay 2% of their per annum GDP towards their membership of the alliance? 

America funds NATO, but any military expert worth his salt will tell you that Russia represents no credible threat to Europe because its army is too small to conquer Europe, as opposed to when they had 20 tank divisions in East Germany back in the Cold-War, just about 2-3-days ride from the Atlantic. If one was to venture nuclear, then the main European countries, all their major cities, key industries and their half-a-dozen or so aircraft carriers would lost no more than two-days, three at best, though even the most conservative military expert will reluctantly opine that not even Ivan is that mad.  So in effect, the American government is wasting unnecessary tax payers’ dollars on an out-dated military alliance that has no real enemies, other than imaginary ones, like the chimerical friends of so many suburban prepubescents. 

Yet, the irony of the prevailing “Russophobic” narrative which by the way is actually an invention of the Pentagon PR machinery and backed by the American corporate elite who have successfully captured the American state and “corporatized” it through the unlimited financial muscle of Wall Street, by bankrolling the Democrats and the Republicans. And of course the on-going funding and financial maintenance of right-wing think tanks and the ever growing plethora of lobbyists, the round-trip hiring of PR and advertising firms completes their (the corporate elites) circle of influence and control over the American state apparatus. 

It is better to have Russia on the inside of a new G8, instead of on the outside because isolating Russia from their growing relationship with China, will only ensure they (Russia and China) form the most powerful military alliance in human history. Remember that the German invasion of Russia in late 1941 with more than 200 elite divisions and their subsequent defeat in the aptly named, “Great Patriotic War,” it was indeed the Russians that gave the Americans and the allies much needed breathing space to recalibrate their economies and their armed forces for their eventual entry into the war, albeit in the final stages. By then the military might of Germany were by all accounts exhausted. This demonstrates the historical importance and some say, reliability of Russia as an ally? 

Let’s use an example of U.S. and Russian military strategic doctrine. The only reason why the Russians only have one aircraft carrier, the ageing Admiral Kuznetsov, as opposed to America’s twelve (plus 11 smaller ones) is because the U.S. uses aircraft carrier strategy fundamentally for “power projection” read the ability to intimidate other countries and rapidly invade them, whereas Russia uses it for homeland defence and to help distressed allies like in the case with Syria, Iran and Venezuela. 

He (Trump) contends that the CIA and the FBI cannot be trusted, and this is borne out by the following. The former head of the CIA, Michael Morel went to the New York Times and endorsed Hillary Clinton, subsequently George Bush’s Director of the CIA and chief of the NSA, General Michael Hayden went to the Washington Post and did the same thing, and they’ve accused Trump of being a recruit of Vladimir Putin basically a (Manchurian candidate). This proves the CIA to be a partisan institution, and in my view in the employ of the corporate elite indeed. So Donald Trump is correct to be highly suspicious of their motivations. 

I’m pretty sure everyone knows by now that it was in fact the CIA who first reported that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction and was in an alliance with Al-Qaeda, which precipitated the invasion of Iraq, euphemistically known as the “Iraq War.” This was later proven to be patently and egregiously untrue, so the more pertinent question to all is this, who stands to benefit from these wars?

On the surface it would seem like a “crackpot” idea to want to buy Greenland, as the President has intimated in typical “Trumpian” style, but is it? I would argue that in the context of the on-going disappearance of the polar ice caps through relentless climate change, and viewed in the light of the enormous strides Russia is making in the Arctic, Trump is actually right. Putting the morality aside for a moment and viewing the move through geopolitical lenses, the Arctic region probably holds 20% of the world’s oil and gas reserves and countless other precious metals. 

Being a “property expert,” Trump must believe that given Americas long history of annexing, conquering and buying pieces of land, the idea isn’t that outlandish? After all, America did purchase Alaska on March 30th in 1876 from Russia for a mere $7.6 million. They have by now installed an advanced military communications, airbase (Thule Airbase) in Greenland. As a businessman he is also taking into consideration that the population relies exclusively on fish products caught from dwindling sea reserves and Denmark, for all its bravado doesn’t own Greenland either, so maybe, against all likelihood, America can make a difference?  

“Friends ask questions of you; enemies question who you really are.” 
― Anon