"In response to Russia’s war in Ukraine, Central Asian governments have drawn closer together as a bloc, while welcoming Mr. Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy."

"They are seeking opportunities to reduce their reliance on Moscow, even as they tread lightly so as not to cross the Kremlin or antagonize China. 'For the business relationship, it has never been better,' said Jeff Erlich, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Kazakhstan, who has worked in and around the region since the late 1990s. 'In my experience, that is clear.'"

From "Kazakhstan’s Leader Deepens U.S. Ties, Saying Trump Was ‘Sent by Heaven’/The Central Asian nation is aggressively courting President Trump’s Washington to counterbalance its powerful neighbors, Russia and China" (NYT)(gift link, so you can try to figure it out for yourself).

That's one of 2 stories about Kazakhstan at the top of the front page of the NYT right now. The other is: "Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit. An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the president and the commerce secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten."

"La la la la."

That's the call from the press as Trump arrives at Versailles Palace. 

Is that how reporters try to get a leader's attention in France? I don't think so. I think they would normally use "Mr. President." So is "La la la la" like shouting "Hey!"? No, I don't think that's the case either. I'm understanding "La la la la" as a more random filler sound. I consulted Grok: "'La la la la' functions more like rhythmic, attention-grabbing noise or an extension of the French interjection "Oh là là!" (often elongated for emphasis)."

"I think they think I was right. I’m sort of always right, you know, when you get down to it."

"They think I was right. They feel good. Now all of a sudden they all want to be involved."

Said — it's so obvious (who talks like that?) — Trump.

Quoted in "G-7 ends without rupture as allies praise Trump for ending Iran war/For the other leaders of the Group of Seven nations, success was defined as avoiding a public fight with the U.S. president" (WaPo).

The same allies that have worked to build economic, diplomatic and military hedges against Trump’s unpredictability found themselves applauding his role in restoring a measure of stability.... 

"Greenland is the largest island in the world, but it has fewer than fifty-seven thousand residents, who are mostly scattered..."

"... among settlements and towns along its western coast. Although it belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, it lies to the west of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and is part of North America. The latest articulation of the U.S.’s National Security Strategy, published in November, frames Trump’s imperial ambitions as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, the assertion by President James Monroe, in 1823, that any attempt by European powers to further colonize the Americas would be treated as 'dangerous to our peace and safety.' Under Trump’s leadership, the N.S.S. says, “we will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.'"

Writes Ben Taub, in "Inside the Ludicrous, Deadly Serious Plan to Take Over Greenland/'We want Greenland,' Trump said. Four men sprang into action to make fantasy a reality" (The New Yorker).

Adding tags to this post, I hesitated over whether to use "geography" or "geology" or both. The part about Denmark "owning" or "colonizing" Greenland is obviously geography and not geology, so "geography" is a good tag for this post. But I want to underscore that Greenland is part of the North American continent. To get rid of the politics and human culture and speak of it geologically, Grok pointed me to the Wikipedia article "Laurentia":

"You’re f***ing crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this."

Said Trump, on the phone to Netanyahu last night, according to The London Times reports.

"Speaking just ahead of Trump, Xi... said a major question for the two countries was whether they could avoid the 'Thucydides Trap'...."

I'm reading "Xi asks Trump if U.S. and China can avoid 'Thucydides Trap' at high-stakes summit" (CNBC). (That's the original headline. The headline was rewritten, perhaps to avoid mystification, as "Xi warns Trump: Mishandling Taiwan will put U.S.-China relationship in 'great jeopardy.'")

You probably know Thucydides was a historian in ancient Greece, but is "Thucydides trap" a common term? It's pretty recent, according to Wikipedia, coined and popularized in the last 10 years, and used specifically in the context of the U.S. and China. 

"The US and China 'should be partners and not rivals,' President Xi has said, as he and President Trump exchanged warm words during bilateral talks in Beijing."

"Trump praised his host as a 'great leader' and 'friend,' predicting that their countries would have 'a fantastic future together.' However, Xi warned the two nations could come into conflict if the Taiwan question is 'mishandled.' He told his US counterpart that 'the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,' according to remarks published by Chinese state media shortly after talks began.
'If mishandled, the two nations could collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation,' Xi added."

The London Times reports.

I'm quoting the UK newspaper, but I did note the Washington Post and New York Times headlines for this story. Both use the same verb: 

The Washington Post: "Xi warns Trump that mishandling Taiwan could spark 'conflicts.'"

The New York Times: "Xi Warns Trump on Taiwan at Beijing Summit."

Warns. 

That puts Xi in the dominant position. Trump is on the receiving end.

By contrast, the London Times headline is "Xi tells Trump: China and US should be partners, not rivals."

Tells. That makes a difference. I chose the UK newspaper because I'm put off by our own newspapers' endless antagonism toward Trump and seeming desire to cause anxiety to Americans.

Trump in China.

Wheels down in Beijing!

President Donald J. Trump lands for a landmark summit with China, greeted by Vice President Han Zheng during a welcome ceremony. pic.twitter.com/4q2mATZrn4

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 13, 2026

"President Trump has been rampaging around the globe like Grendel at dinner time, a rapacious, feral creature. Who could stand up to him?"

"The soft-spoken, humble Leo, who strives to unify, squared off against the bombastic, solipsistic Trump, who strives to divide. And watching the saintly pope school the amoral president is a blessed sight...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "The Pope Bedevils Trump" (NYT).

That's a gift link, so you can explore the entire argument.

"The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!"

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you…” - President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/aPYmL0qspa

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 31, 2026

I like how the blurred pink petal in the foreground reads subliminally as her naked ass.

 I say when Meade texts me this.

ADDED: It's video at the link, making it more subliminal. A freeze frame:

I love how the Japanese Prime Minister looks bored and looks at her watch just before Trump takes this one last question and surprises her with his bon mot about the element of surprise.

This is one for the ages:

Trump calls on a male reporter and disarms him with compliments: "Let me pick a beautiful looking person, a beautiful person from Japan.... Oh, he doesn't believe he's beautiful. Oh, he's just — he sounded shy."

The reporter asks: "Why didn't you tell US allies in Europe and Asia like Japan about the war before attacking Iran?"

Trump: "Well, one thing you don't want to signal too much, you know, when we go in, we went in very hard and we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Okay. Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor? Okay. Right.... Don't you believe in surprise? I think much more so than us.... And because of that surprise, we knocked out the first two days, we probably knocked out 50% of what we and much more than we anticipated doing. So, if I go and tell everybody about it, there's no longer a surprise, right?"

There's a difference between surprising the enemy and surprising your allies. But the point seems to be that surprising the enemy will fail if too many allies and supposed allies are in on the plan. Also the specifics of the attack could be kept secret while the decision to go to war is shared. 

ADDED: Trump was actually complimenting Japan.

"The move would topple a key figurehead but leave in place the repressive Communist government that has ruled Cuba for more than 65 years."

"The Americans have signaled to Cuban negotiators that the president must go, but are leaving the next steps up to the Cubans, the people said. The United States so far is not pushing for any action against Castro family members, who remain the country’s top power brokers, two of the people said. That is consistent with the general desire of Mr. Trump and his aides to force regime compliancerather than regime change in their foreign policy...."

From "Trump Administration Said to Tell Cuba That Its President Has to Go/The United States has told Cuba that for meaningful progress to be made in negotiations, President Miguel Díaz-Canel must step down, said people familiar with the talks" (NYT).

The article at the link on "force regime compliance" is especially interesting: "Trump and Rubio’s Vision of War: The Art of Destroy and Deal/Unleashing his inner hawk, Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans President Trump’s military interventions. So far, they favor regime compliance, not change":

"Every president, of course, creates a decision-making structure tailor-made for his own style."

"Franklin D. Roosevelt relied heavily on a kitchen cabinet. Harry S. Truman created the National Security Council to formally weigh options and coordinate among departments fighting the Cold War. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter turned the N.S.C. into an idea generator. In the Obama administration, members of the N.S.C. staff talked about 'death by Situation Room meeting' and compared the process of policymaking to watching a python swallow a pig."

From "Trump Follows His Gut. His National Security Advisers Try to Keep Up. Decisions come fast, even if contradictions and inconsistencies abound. But without much of a process, there is little preparation for how things can go wrong" (NYT).

And Trump? He has, we're told, "reduced the size of the N.S.C. staff by at least two thirds.... And when debates take place, the number of players often shrinks to a tiny group.... Not much leaks from those sessions, a major change from, say, the early Obama era, when Situation Room conversations sometimes appeared on news websites before the meetings were over."

So then we don't really have a way of knowing what goes on. Well, the NYT writer, David Sanger, presents us with a quote from Thomas Wright, "a scholar at the Brookings Institution who worked on long-term strategic planning in the National Security Council during the Biden years," who purports to tell us what "Trump seems to think," which is that "he doesn’t need options or contingency plans. He just wants a small team to execute his instincts."

"Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland..."

"... and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Writes President Trump, at Truth Social.

ADDED: I just want to note that I have seen that Trump kept calling Greenland "Iceland," and I'm not buying the theory that he was merely calling it an ice land and not mixing it up with the country named Iceland.

Trump is now confusing Greenland and Iceland: "They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money." pic.twitter.com/Iu9CI6M2ku

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2026

I thought of another excuse that could be attempted. Trump likes to rename things, notably the Gulf of Mexico, so maybe part of his plan is to rename Greenland, which, after all, was misnamed in the first place. I do not think it's a good idea to use a name that another country is already using, but at least, he's not calling it Trumpland.

Trump live, now, at Davos.

A quote (re drug prices): "You've been SCREWING us for 30 YEARS!!!"

"I mean, whatever you think about the operation to get rid of Maduro, whether you think it was wise, it was an astonishing display of military prowess."

"And if you are Donald Trump and you pull off such spectacular military successes and then get the reinforcement of the praise and the fear, it's self-reinforcing. And that's why you see him now saying, well what about Greenland? What about Cuba? What about regime change in Iran? Is he just going to continue to get lucky in all these circumstances? We don't know, we're still very early in the presidency... [I]t's true that the Europeans are now spending more on their defense. Donald Trump has managed to get them to do something that other presidents have not. And he should be credited for that. But... America's traditional allies will not go back to the way they were in terms of trusting America.... Even if we do get some restorationist type figure who's saying... you know, everyone needs to hold hands. They've now had this lived experience of an American president that says, we're gonna take this territory. And you know, to hell with you, you're just gonna have to live with it...."

Said Jonathan Swan in today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "Trump 2.0: A Year of Unconstrained Power" (audio and transcript at Podscribe). As the episode title suggests, today marks the 1-year anniversary of Trump's second term in office.

Swan was responding to a prompt from the host, Michael Barbaro. Barbaro had said that Trump's "interventions," while "legally dubious," "have seemed to turn out pretty well for the United States." NATO is "paying more than ever for its own defense," and Latin America is doing "a heck of a lot more to fight those [drug] cartels."

What I'm sure Swan realizes even as he says those words — "America's traditional allies will not go back to the way they were in terms of trusting America" — is that the Europeans need us. Trump is using their dependence to bargain for things that benefit the United States. That's open and on the surface. Who is this character Swan calls the "restorationist" and what is he up to? Is he trustworthy? Is he lucky?

Speaking of things that feel like we're in a movie, the President of the United States just posted this on his place called Truth.

Link.

"The Kremlin has announced that Vladimir Putin has been invited to join Donald Trump’s 'board of peace'..."

"... set up last week with the intention that it would oversee a ceasefire in Gaza. The Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told journalists on Monday that Russia was seeking to 'clarify all the nuances' of the offer with Washington, before giving its response. The claimed invitation comes as Putin shows no signs of ending his invasion of Ukraine, in which hundreds of thousands have been killed..."

The Guardian reports.

"U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that it would be 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to slap tariffs on European nations opposing his plan to take over Greenland...."

"In remarks to reporters, Starmer denounced economic coercion against allies as the wrong approach to resolving disagreements. He described tariffs as harmful to British workers and businesses — even as he praised and sought to preserve the relationship with the United States, which has underpinned Europe’s security and economic interests for more than eight decades...."

From "Europeans see alliance at risk as Trump stokes trade war over Greenland/U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to threaten tariffs on allies who oppose his push to seize or buy Greenland" (WaPo).

"Trump has insisted that controlling Greenland is necessary for national security reasons — a point disputed by allies and some senior members of Congress who have rebutted the president’s claim that the Arctic territory faces imminent security risks from Russia and China. Trump’s unwillingness, so far, to back down risks driving a deeper wedge in the Western alliance or, some fear, causing an irreparable break."

Is the dispute about what counts as "imminent"... or rather how early we need to act in advance of a security risk becoming imminent? I go back to what Scott Bessent said yesterday: "The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency."

Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?

ADDED: Trump wrote this letter to the prime minister of Norway: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"