China, Russia, and Iran released a joint statement on 14 March demanding an end to “unlawful” US sanctions against the Islamic Republic after meetings in Beijing between the three countries, which were aimed at jumpstarting stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.
The three countries “emphasized the necessity of terminating all unlawful unilateral sanctions” after talks hosted by Beijing on Friday morning, according to the joint statement read out by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaxou.
“The three countries reiterated that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue based on the principle of mutual respect remains the only viable and practical option in this regard,” read the joint statement.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov Sergey Alexeevich and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibadi were also present.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on 12 March that Beijing would host the high-level talks regarding the nuclear issue with Russia and Iran this week, coinciding with growing tension between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian atomic energy program.
Russia also signaled earlier this month that it was willing to help facilitate negotiations between Iran and the US.
US President Donald Trump has been pushing for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing harsh economic sanctions against the country.
Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have announced their refusal to engage in negotiations under pressure, in line with the position taken by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
A letter written by Trump addressing the supreme leader, which has yet to be published, has reportedly been handed over to Araghchi by Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed (MbZ).
On 7 March, Trump said: “I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal.”
Khamenei said in response that “bully governments … insist on negotiations” which are “not aimed at solving problems; they aim at domination.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last month that Iran significantly increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium by 92.5 kilograms (203.9 pounds) since its previous report in November.
A closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting attended by representatives of the US, UK, France, and other countries was held on Wednesday. After the meeting, the UK deputy ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, accused Iran of “dramatically” enriching uranium towards weapons-grade level and said western countries will “take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon,” including the reimposition of sanctions.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House is shaping up to be nothing short of a political revolution. The new administration is rapidly dismantling the old order, purging the ruling elite, reshaping both domestic and foreign policy, and cementing changes that will be difficult to reverse – even if his opponents regain power in future elections.
For Trump, as for all revolutionaries, the priority is to break the existing system and consolidate radical transformations. Many of the principles that guided US policy for decades – sometimes for over a century – are being deliberately discarded. Washington’s global strategy, long built on expansive military, diplomatic, and financial influence, is being rewritten to serve Trump’s domestic political needs.
The end of the American liberal empire
For the past 100 years, the US has functioned as a global empire. Unlike traditional empires built on territorial expansion, the American empire extended its reach through financial dominance, military alliances, and ideological influence. This model, however, has become increasingly unsustainable. Since the late 1990s, the costs of maintaining global hegemony have exceeded the benefits, fueling discontent both at home and abroad.
Trump and his allies seek to end this ‘liberal empire’ and return America to a more self-reliant, mercantilist model – one reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries under President William McKinley. Trump has openly praised this era, viewing it as the golden age of US prosperity, before the country took on the burdens of global leadership.
Under this vision, America will reduce unproductive foreign expenditures and refocus on its natural advantages: Vast resources, an advanced industrial base, and the world’s most valuable consumer market. Rather than policing the world, Washington will wield its economic power more aggressively to secure trade advantages. However, the transition to this model carries significant risks, particularly in a highly globalized economy.
A shift in global strategy
Trump’s policies are driven by domestic concerns but will have major implications abroad. His administration is systematically dismantling key institutions of the old order, including those that irritated Moscow. For instance, USAID – a major vehicle for American influence in the post-Soviet space – has been gutted. Ironically, Trump had more motivation to destroy USAID than even Russian President Vladimir Putin, given that its resources had been repurposed for domestic political use by Trump’s rivals.
If the US abandons its liberal empire model, many sources of tension with Russia will disappear. Historically, Moscow and Washington had relatively stable relations throughout the 19th century. If Trump’s America reverts to a more isolationist approach, Russia will no longer be a primary target of US interference. The main friction point will likely be the Arctic, where both nations have strategic interests.
China, however, remains Trump’s top adversary. Beijing’s state-led economic expansion is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s mercantilist vision. Unlike Biden, who sought to counter China through alliances, Trump is willing to go it alone – potentially weakening Western unity in the process. His administration is expected to escalate economic and technological warfare against Beijing, even if it means alienating European allies.
Europe’s strategic uncertainty
One of Trump’s most disruptive moves has been his open hostility toward the EU. His vice president, J.D. Vance, recently delivered a speech in Munich that amounted to direct interference in European politics, signaling support for right-wing nationalist movements that challenge the EU’s authority.
This shift is forcing Europe into an uncomfortable position. For years, China has viewed Western Europe as an ‘alternative West’ with which it could engage economically without the same level of confrontation it faces with the US. Trump’s approach could accelerate EU-Chinese ties, especially if Western European leaders feel abandoned by Washington.
There are already signs that European policymakers may loosen restrictions on Chinese investments, particularly in critical industries such as semiconductors. At the same time, the ambitions of some Europeans for NATO expansion into the Indo-Pacific may falter, as the bloc struggles to define its new role in a post-globalist US strategy.
Russia and China: A changing relationship
For years, Washington fantasized about splitting Russia and China apart. But Trump’s new approach is unlikely to achieve this goal. The Russia-China partnership is built on strong fundamentals: A massive shared border, complementary economies, and a shared interest in countering Western dominance.
If anything, the shifting geopolitical landscape could push Russia into a position similar to that of China in the early 2000s – focusing on economic development while maintaining strategic flexibility. Moscow may reduce its efforts to actively undermine the US and instead concentrate on strengthening its economic and security ties with Beijing.
China, meanwhile, will bear the brunt of Trump’s new American empire. The US will no longer rely on alliances to contain Beijing but will use direct economic and military pressure. While this may make life more difficult for China, it does not necessarily mean the US will succeed. China has been preparing for economic decoupling for years, and Beijing may find opportunities in a more divided Western world.
The road ahead
Trump’s return marks a fundamental shift in global power dynamics. The US is moving away from being a liberal empire and toward a more transactional, power-based foreign policy. For Russia, this means fewer ideological conflicts with Washington but continued competition in key areas like the Arctic.
For China, Trump’s policies present a direct challenge. The question is whether Beijing can adapt to a world where the US is no longer just containing it but actively trying to roll back its economic influence.
For Western Europe, the picture is bleak. The EU is losing its privileged status as America’s primary partner and is being forced to fend for itself. Whether it can navigate this new reality remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: The world is entering a period of profound transformation, and the old rules no longer apply. Trump’s America is rewriting the playbook, and the rest of the world will have to adjust accordingly.
Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
This article was translated and edited by the RT team.
President Donald Trump has floated trilateral US-Russia-China talks on cuts to strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles. Sputnik reached out to one of Russia’s foremost experts on strategic security issues to discuss what’s behind the proposal, and its chances for success.
“Nuclear weapons are precisely one of the areas where competitors outpacing the United States is very visible,” says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.
“Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals combined provide two times preponderance over the United States, or will make two times preponderance in the observable future,” Suslov stressed.
Nuclear talks are the “alternative” for the US to bankruptcy stemming from high defense spending and unsustainable debt, particularly as the US nuclear arsenal is stuck in the 80s and lags far behind competitors, especially Russia, and would take immense resources to modernize, the observer said.
Instead, Trump “wants to channel competition into some other areas, into the areas where the United States largely have advantages,” according to Suslov, from high-precision conventional arms to his “Golden Dome” proposal for a space-based SDI 2.0.
“This is an attempt to reduce competition in the area where the United States is not competitive and to channel the competition into the areas where the United States is competitive, has comparative advantages, technological advantages, in the opinion of the Trump administration,” the expert noted.
Will Trump’s Nuclear Negotiations Push Succeed?
“Complete denuclearization is impossible,” Suslov stressed, since nuclear weapons serve as the “ultimate guarantee which prevents war among great powers.”
“The only [reason] why NATO and the United States have not started a direct war against Russia yet in the context of the Ukraine war is nuclear weapons,” he said.
Russia and China will be unlikely to agree to trilateral talks, the expert believes, since their relations are built on partnership, not deterrence.
As for bilateral Russia-US talks, these are possible, “but also [face] huge impediments,” including the need to include the French and British nuclear arsenals into account.
“Basically, Macron made it absolutely clear that the purpose of French nuclear weapons is to deter Russia. This is against Russia. The purpose of British nuclear weapons is also against Russia. And they plan explicitly nuclear operations, potential nuclear operations against Russia,” Suslov noted.
Accordingly, Russia’s strategy will continue revolving around insisting “on a comprehensive approach and taking all the factors which impact strategic stability into account,” Suslov predicts.
President Donald Trump restated his desire to abolish nuclear weapons during a White House presser on Thursday.
“It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons. [I know] Russia and us have by far the most,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “China will have an equal amount within four to five years. It would be great if we could all de-nuclearize because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”
Currently, nine countries – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons. With global tensions on the rise, several nations, including the US, are adding to their strategic capability.
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Beijing is working to ramp up its production of nuclear weapons. Last year, the agency predicted that China could have over 1,000 nuclear weapons. However, that would still give Beijing a far smaller arsenal than Washington and Moscow, which each have around 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and thousands more in storage.
Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump said he spoke with President Vladimir Putin about denuclearization during his first term, and that the Russian leader was receptive to the idea. “We were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China right now has a much smaller nuclear armament than us, or field, than us, but they’re going to be catching [up] at some point,” Trump said.
“I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of cutting back on nuclear, and I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too. China also liked it,” he added. “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about. It’s too depressing.”
Trump has also discussed negotiating a deal with Moscow and Beijing that would see all three countries drastically cut military spending.
However, while Trump has at times voiced support for demilitarization and denuclearization, during his first term in office he scrapped two major arms control agreements, the Open Skies and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force treaties.
Additionally, Trump refused to engage in bilateral discussions with Russia on extending the last nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, the New Start Treaty. He insisted that Moscow must pressure Beijing to make it a trilateral deal, a demand that almost led to the downfall of the landmark deal.
Though President Joe Biden was able to reach an agreement with Putin to extend the treaty for five more years in 2021, it is set to expire next year without another extension.
Vienna – In the 1980s, Eastern Europe was caught in the tension between the inflexible ideological framework of the Communist Party and the burgeoning desires of the populace for economic and political transformation. For those entrenched in power, it was about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival was at stake, as the legitimacy of their rule was precarious and the societal mood was increasingly inhospitable.
These rulers sought solace in ideological manipulation and censorship. The state-controlled media cast the West as the ultimate adversary, perpetrating ideological subversion through the dissemination of bourgeois propaganda spread by enemies of the socialism with the goal of toppling the socialist regime by violent means. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s allure lay in its exemplary living standards, relative freedom, and human rights and its intentions to overthrow the socialist system was substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.
Then, in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev emerged as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, introducing Perestroika — a sweeping set of economic and political reforms aimed at making the Soviet Union and the broader Eastern Bloc competitive with the West. This sparked widespread anticipation among the populace, yet also stirred anxiety among the Eastern European power structures: Gorbachev’s initiatives contained elements that threatened their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the hitherto adversary as ally.
The social divide grew more profound. The hopes of the populace in satellite nations were pinned on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures that he had previously established. Yet, from the perspective of the Eastern European elite, Gorbachev had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.
Within four years, the Eastern Bloc crumbled, and two years later, the Soviet Union followed suit. The previously dominant CPSU was outlawed, and its remnants in Eastern Europe swiftly switched allegiance to the former adversary.
History, it seems, has a peculiar way of repeating itself. In the early 21st century, a parallel schism is forming in Western societies. The very elements that made the West appealing for four decades — traditional values, social welfare, peace, human rights, liberty, and democracy — have been ruthlessly curtailed. The ruling establishments are embroiled in the spread of panic over COVID-19 and are actively participating in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.
Western Europeans are increasingly placing their trust in emerging populist parties, spanning both the right and left wings of the political spectrum. For the entrenched establishment, it is about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival is at stake. Their grip on power and the pathways that lead to it are laden with activities that could be unequivocally deemed criminal. The evolving societal climate does not appear promising for them either.
Their salvation, they believe, lies in media manipulation and censorship. The mainstream narrative consistently vilifies Russia and China as ominous dictatorships, wages campaigns against disinformation, the Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism spread by agents of Putin. The West, it claims, faces an imminent attack from Russia. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s credibility has been eroded by its own actions, and the notion of a Russian attack is substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.
In 2025, Donald Trump re-entered the political arena as the US President, initiating MAGA, a movement to combat the deep state and cleanse American society of obscure financial and power structures. This stirred great hope among many Americans, but also significant apprehension among the established elite. MAGA represented not just a challenge to their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the West’s adversary as potential ally.
The social rift grew wider. The residents of Western satellites pinned their hopes on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures. Yet, from the perspective of those structures, Trump had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.
The trajectory seems clear: the eventual disintegration of the Atlantic bloc and the shift of its remnants to the former adversary. Will the collapse of the hegemonic power come next? It’s a reasonable prediction.
But let’s go a step further. The euphoria of the Cold War’s end and the unbridled optimism for a future of comprehensive peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights were soon overshadowed by their gradual erosion. In retrospect, the new hegemon had only its own global world domination in mind from the beginning. This led to new conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Can we expect history to repeat itself after the fall of the Atlantic bloc? Not necessarily. The emerging superpowers of China, India, and Russia do not share the western legacy of colonialist exploitation. The BRICS+ coalition presents itself as a multipolar community of equals, emphasizing cooperation over competition.
Still, we must remain cautious, for the 1990s taught us that optimism can be fleeting. A society that neglects its history is destined to repeat it. Over the past 25 years, we have amassed a treasure trove of tragic lessons to learn from and be vigilant against.
During his first official Cabinet meeting of his second term on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump refused to comment when asked by a reporter’s question about whether “the US would allow China to take control of Taiwan by force,” Instead, he responded by expressing his desire for Chinese investment in the US, Reuters reported.
“I never comment on that,” Trump said at the White House. “I don’t want to ever put myself in that position,” according to the Reuters report.
Trump claimed he had a great relationship with the Chinese leader. “We want them to come in and invest. I see so many things saying that we don’t want China in this country. That’s not right. We want them to invest in the US. That’s good. There’s a lot of money coming in, and we’ll invest in China. We’ll do things with China. The relationship we’ll have with China will be a very good one,” Trump said.
Some local media outlets in Taiwan noted on Thursday that this was not the first time Trump had declined to make a commitment to the island.
In an article published by CNA on Thursday, it was noted in its headline that Trump refused to make a commitment to the island again.
The CNA report cited an interview of Trump with NBC’s Meet the Press in December 2024, when the host asked, “If China invades Taiwan on your watch, are you committed to defending Taiwan?” Trump responded, “I never say.”
Local media FTV News also published an article on Thursday, saying Trump refused again to make commitment to Taiwan.
Citing articles from The New York Times, Taiwan’s UDN News published an article on Thursday titled “Trump abandons Ukraine, doubts about US support deepened in Taiwan.”
The New York Times noted on Tuesday that In Taiwan, Trump’s stinging comments about Ukraine could feed a current of public opinion arguing that the island has been repeatedly abandoned by Washington and cannot trust its promises.
In response to media reports about the Trump administration release of $5.3 billion in previously frozen foreign aid, including $870 million designated for military assistance to Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Wednesday’s press briefing that China has all along opposed US military assistance to China’s Taiwan region, which has severely violated the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, undermined China’s sovereignty and security interests, and sent a gravely wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces.
“We urge the US to stop arming Taiwan and undermining the peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. China will closely follow the situation and firmly defend national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” Lin said.
“‘Protection fees’ won’t protect ‘Taiwan independence’ forces, and the ‘chess pieces’ will inevitably turn into ‘abandoned pieces,'” said Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, during a press conference on Wednesday.
Her remarks came in response to reports that the secessionist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities on Taiwan island are contemplating arms purchases from the US, ranging from $7 billion to $10 billion, in an effort to gain favor with the Trump administration.
President Donald Trump floated offering Russia and China to join the US in slashing their defence budgets in half when speaking to reporters at the White House on earlier in February, adding that he hoped to take this up with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping “when things calm down”.
Washington hopes to drag Moscow and Beijing into “deceptive” 50% military spending cuts, staking on their desire to “avoid appearing disinterested in peace overtures by the US,” geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic told Sputnik.
The proposal is a ruse by Donald Trump aimed at rectifying the “disparity between the bloated US military budget” and the “more efficient ones of Moscow and Beijing,” noted the former US Marine.
“A genuine agreement would not be based on a percentage cut, but an equal reduction in […] explicitly capabilities the US has used for decades to project power abroad, including its global-spanning network of military bases, its membership in aggressive blocs like NATO, its sea and airlift capabilities, and various types of missiles and drones (both naval and aerial) the US is right now developing to menace nations like Russia and China along, and within their own borders,” he said.
Even if the US, Russia, and China were to slash military spending by 50%, proportionately America would “still enjoy greater overall spending than both nations combined, speculated the pundit.
Despite this proposal sounding promising at face value, he added, without further details from the US government’s side, it “appears to be an attempt to provide the US an overwhelming military advantage all while appearing to pursue global peace.”
US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States, Russia, and potentially China each reduce their defense budgets by 50%, saying: “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that.”
Following this proposal, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin indicated Moscow’s openness to negotiations: “We are not against it. The idea is good: the US cuts by 50%, we cut by 50%, and if China wants, they can join later.”
China’s defense spending “is completely out of the need of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, and the need of maintaining world peace,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a press conference on February 25.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva rejected an approach by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to purchase arms for Ukraine. The Brazilian head of stage stressed he wouldn’t sell weapons “to kill Russians” or anyone else.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday at a joint media conference with the Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, Lula reiterated Brazil’s neutral stance in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and Moscow.
Germany, in contrast, has been among Ukraine’s key backers, having supplied it with billions worth of military aid. Da Silva recalled that in January 2023, Scholz visited Brazil as part of a tour to drum up support for Kiev in South America and requested cannons for the war.
”I told my friend Olaf Scholz: ‘I will not sell weapons to kill a Russian, to kill anyone. So, I want to apologize, but Brazil will not sell the weapons you need because I want peace, and if I want peace, I cannot fuel the war. We want peace between Russia and Ukraine. Now, this is only possible if both are at the negotiating table’,” he said.
Lula has long advocated for talks to resolve the conflict and insisted that supplying arms would only escalate the situation, hindering prospects for peace.
Last May Brasilia and Beijing jointly issued a six-point plan for settling the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing “dialogue and negotiation” as the only “viable way out of the crisis.”
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky dismissed the proposal as “just a political statement,” accusing them of colluding with Russia.
Lula hit back, saying that Ukraine should heed Brazil’s advice about seeking peace in the conflict. “Those who want to talk to us now could have talked to us before the war had started,” he said.
On Thursday, Russia’s top diplomat Sergey Lavrov and his Brazilian counterpart Mauro Vieira discussed the need to address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict and this week’s Russian-US talks in Riyadh, the foreign ministry in Moscow said. Speaking on the sidelines of G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, they also discussed upcoming high-level meetings and plans for collaboration between Moscow and Brasília, especially within BRICS, the ministry statement added.
I had a conversation with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the state of the US empire and what Trump attempts to do to reverse the relative decline of the US. Trump has been very aggressive against the deep state, which has become wasteful and ideological over the past decades. Trump is making huge moves to get the US out of Ukraine, which will also enable the US to get out of Europe. The greatest weakness in Trump’s foreign policy appears to be his approach to the Middle East, where he risks unleashing a major regional war. Trump’s tactic of bluster and noise to disrupt the status quo and create greater room for manoeuvre will trigger huge movements in the region that cannot be controlled.
The Group of Eight (G8) has become obsolete because it no longer represents the world’s economic growth engines, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Friday, in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposal to readmit Russia.
Under the proposal, Russia would rejoin the group currently consisting of the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. However, three of the top-10 global economic powers in terms of GDP and PPP – China, India and Brazil – aren’t in the club.
Peskov pointed out that the group has “lost its relevance” because economic growth centers have shifted to other parts of the world and are not represented in the current configuration.
“The G7 does not represent the world’s leading economic and social development centers,” Peskov said.
He emphasized Russia’s preference for the G20 format, which includes China, India, and Brazil alongside the G7 members. “The G20 better reflects the economic locomotives of the world,” Peskov added.
Trump suggested on Thursday that Russia should be reinstated in the G8, calling its 2014 exclusion a mistake. “I’d love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out,” the US president stated at the White House.
Russia joined the group in 1997 as a “non-enumerated member.” However, its membership was suspended in 2014 following the country’s reunification with Crimea, after which the G8 reverted to the G7. Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia through a referendum after the Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.
On Thursday President Donald Trump continued to signal positive feelings about a future relationship with Russia and Putin, telling reporters that he’d like to see Russia invited back in to join the The Group of Seven major economies, or G7, which until 2014 was the G8 when Russia was included.
“I’d love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out. Look, it’s not a question of liking Russia or not liking Russia. It was the G8,” Trump said from the Oval Office upon announcing new US reciprocal tariffs.
“I said, ‘What are you doing? You guys – all you’re talking about is Russia and they should be sitting at the table.’ And he then added, “I think Putin would love to be back.”
The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US. In 2014 these nations decided to expel Russia over the annexation of Crimea, but Moscow pointed out that Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to become part of the Russian Federation after a popular referendum.
Another highlight from the Oval Office press conference was when the president called on China and Russia to join the United States in agreeing to cut their enormous defense budgets in half. He said in the context of also urging the three major powers to restart nuclear arms control talks.
“One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say, ‘let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that. And I think we’ll be able to,” Trump declared.
According to an Associated Press summary of the comments:
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump lamented the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in rebuilding the nation’s nuclear deterrent and said he hopes to gain commitments from the U.S. adversaries to cut their own spending.
“There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons, we already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”
“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully much more productive,” Trump continued.
Russia and the US have long had the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals, but China has in the last ten years been making strides to greatly bolster its strategic capabilities, which has alarmed the West. Trump warned that any future nuclear use by a global power is “going to be probably oblivion.”
Likely Moscow and Beijing will receive these words positively as an overture, especially on the nuclear front, but neither will actually heed Trump’s call to pledge a 50% reduction in defense spending – especially when Russia is at war in Ukraine and under US-EU sanctions. They might tell the Trump White House instead: ‘your move first’.
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he will impose 25 percent tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, as well as additional tariffs on several countries.
Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita writes about nervous movements in Brussels, which is preparing for a response if President Trump decides to go to a trade war with the EU.
“The Polish presidency organized an urgent teleconference of EU ministers on Wednesday afternoon regarding the American announcements of a trade war. No decision has come into effect yet, so there can be no counter-decision from the EU, but in the face of increasingly decisive threats from the U.S. directed by President Trump, Europe must show unity,” one source told Rzeczpospolita.
American tariffs would be a serious blow to EU countries. The EU as a whole exports around €6 billion of steel and aluminum to the US annually, €3 billion for each of these raw materials.
Furthermore, when it comes to automobiles, the EU’s import duties are clearly unfair, with the EU hitting the U.S. with 10 percent duties on U.S.-made cars, while the U.S. rate is only 2.5 percent. Trump has long pointed to this imbalance. In addition, the EU charges VAT, which Washington treats as an additional fee.
The EU is arguing it cannot reduce its tariffs on the U.S. to 2.5 percent because then it would automatically (in accordance with the rules of the most favored nation clause) also have to reduce tariffs on car imports from other member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including China. And it is already in serious dispute with them when it comes to electric cars subsidized by Beijing.
With vehicles, the stakes are incredible for the EU compared, as the auto industry accounts for €65 billion in exports to the U.S., with 74 percent of the 920,000 cars sold in the U.S. produced by the three biggest German car manufacturers, Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes. Car sales have fallen in Europe and sales are also shrinking in China, which means that the German car manufacturers cannot afford to lose the U.S. market either. Behind the scenes, there is heavy lobbying from the U.S. to avoid a trade war.
“We are deeply concerned about the possible imposition of tariffs by the United States. Instead of tit-for-tat tariffs, the EU and the U.S. should work together to reach a grand agreement to avoid a potential trade conflict,” said Sigrid de Vries, secretary general of ACEA, the EU’s automotive industry federation.
Brussels argues that starting a trade war is not in the interests of the U.S.
“The EU sees no justification for imposing tariffs on our exports, which are counterproductive. Tariffs are taxes, bad for businesses, even worse for consumers and harmful to the global trading system,” said Maros Sefcovic, EU trade commissioner.
The EU indicates that it will reduce the trade deficit with the U.S. by boosting purchases of liquified natural gas (LNG), which the EU needs anyway, and American weapons.
However, in the event that Trump slaps the EU with tariffs, there are countermeasures being prepared, including retaliatory tariffs. This already occurred during the previous trade war with Europe under the previous Trump administration, including products produced in states where Trump had substantial support, such as bourbon from Kentucky, Harley Davidson motorcycles from Wisconsin, and orange juice from Florida.
Since the last trade skirmish with Trump, the EU has also gained other ways to harass American producers. Since December 2023, it has had an instrument against economic coercion (ACI), which allows it to impose tariffs, restrictions on trade in services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, as well as restrictions on access to foreign direct investment or public procurement. It can also attack technology companies that are dear to Trump’s heart. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) contain a wide range of measures to influence large internet platforms, which could hit companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta.
At the same time, there are worries that a trade war could quickly spiral, which could wreak economic havoc on both sides of the Atlantic.
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 