France: Europe can no longer rely on US for protection aays French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire

Europe has to become No. 3 super-power besides China and the United States. Let's open our eyes, we are facing threats and we cannot rely anymore on the protection of the United States," Le Maire told reporters during an annual business conference in Cernobbio on Lake Como on Saturday.

The French minister said Paris had decided to invest 1.7 billion euros ($2.02 billion) more in defence this year and would like to see other European countries to do the same.

The minister also called other EU member states to invest and to deepen their single market to achieve technological independence from big overseas companies and third countries.

Read more at: Europe can no longer rely on US for protection | The Daily Star

USA: The Biden victory and the future of the centre-left – by EJ Dionne Jr

Joe Biden’s defeat of Donald Trump in the presidential election has brought relief and a measure of hope to progressives across the globe. The celebration was especially enthusiastic in Europe, where the rise of right-wing nationalism was abetted by Trump’s presidency. If Biden could stem the tide, others had reason to believe they might join him.

Read more at: The Biden victory and the future of the centre-left – EJ Dionne Jr

USA: Biden urged to reject Big Tech's influence by 32 advocacy groups

Thirty-two groups including ones focused on antitrust, consumer advocacy and progressive issues sent a letter to President-elect Joe Biden on Monday urging him to reject the influence of Big Tech companies on his administration.

Read more at Biden urged to reject Big Tech's influence by 32 advocacy groups | Reuters

Turkey: How Turkey’s use of military power furthers Erdoğan’s ambitions - by Scott Peterson

The cease-fire agreement ending six weeks of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh was greeted in Turkey as a “sacred success” for “brotherly Azerbaijan” in its fight with Armenia.

For Turkey, the outcome was also the latest successful example of its assertive and game-changing use of military hard power, which has so far redrawn geopolitical realities from Libya and Syria to the southern Caucasus.

Read more at: How Turkey’s use of military power furthers Erdoğan’s ambitions

USA: Will Donald Trump cause a civil war? by Elizabeth Drew

Note EU-Digest: "The political situation has become extremely dangerous and critical in the USA, as Trump and his cronies set his illegal planned "coup" in action. The guard rails of US democracy are coming down. US diplomats around the world are in despair not knowing how to respond to local government officials questions as to the present political chaos in America."

Trump’s disinclination — and perhaps inability — to reach beyond his right-wing base, which is insufficient to elect him, also calls into question his political acumen, and is one of many reasons to doubt his basic intelligence (an issue on which he is quite sensitive). But one thing about the president is now clearer than ever: In order to perpetuate his hold on power, Trump is testing the constitution in unprecedented ways.

Read more at Will Donald Trump cause a civil war? | The Japan Times

USA - Gun Control: ‘Guns are a way to exercise power’: how the idea of overthrowing the government became mainstream - by Lois Beckett

Josh Horwitz has been an American gun control activist for nearly 30 years. In 2009, he co-wrote a book warning that the idea of armed revolt against the government was at the center of the US gun rights movement.

Now, after a year that has seen heavily armed men show up at state capitols in Virginia, Michigan, Idaho and elsewhere to confront Democratic lawmakers over gun control and coronavirus restrictions, more Americans are taking gun owners’ rhetoric about “tyrants” seriously. Some of the same armed protesters who showed up at Michigan’s state house and at a pro-gun rally this summer were charged last week with conspiring to kidnap Michigan’s governor and put her on trial for tyranny.

Other members of the “boogaloo” movement have allegedly murdered law enforcement officers in California and plotted acts of violence across the country in hopes of sparking a civil war.

Read more at:
‘Guns are a way to exercise power’: how the idea of overthrowing the government became mainstream | US gun control | The Guardian

Big Tech Under Scrutiny: Big Tech painted as the railroad barons of the digital age in antitrust hearing - by Therese Poletti

Jeff Bezos

For the most part — if you could tune out the political grandstanding that had nothing to do with antitrust — Wednesday’s congressional hearing on Big Tech gave many pointed examples of how four of the biggest tech companies in the U.S. abuse their dominant power and thwart competition.

What happens next will be in the hands of  US Goverment agencies. And while after Wednesday’s hearing it seems Alphabet may be most in jeopardy, the other companies should not relax. None of Big Tech made a very good showing Wednesday.

Read more at: 
Big Tech painted as the railroad barons of the digital age in antitrust hearing - MarketWatch

USA - a thoroughly corrupt political process: Billionaires got $565 billion richer during the coronavirus pandemic

American billionaires are now nearly 20% richer — by $565 billion,to be exact — than they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic,according to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies

Six billionaires, including Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Tesla's Elon Musk, and Zoom's Eric Yuan, have seen their net worths grow by more than $2billion each since March, according to the think tank's analysis of Forbes' Billionaires List.

The coronavirus crisis has been an economic disaster for the rest of America, as an end unprecedented 42.6 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the past 11 weeks.

Note EU-Digest: This is another major problem facing America, and has resulted in the overwhelming influence Corporate America has on the political environment of the US and beyound. What's been happening with White House and Congressional politics could only be described as a thoroughly corrupt process, with the blessings of a Supreme Court dominated by justices hand-picked to protect the same process.

Read more at:
Billionaires got $565 billion richer during the coronavirus pandemic - Business Insider

USA: What Can a President Do During a State of Emergency?

In the weeks leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald Trump reached deep into his arsenal to try to deliver votes to Republicans.

Most of his weapons were rhetorical, featuring a mix of lies and false inducements—claims that every congressional Democrat had signed on to an “open borders” bill (none had), that liberals were fomenting violent “mobs” (they weren’t), that a 10 percent tax cut for the middle class would somehow pass while Congress was out of session (it didn’t). But a few involved the aggressive use—and threatened misuse—of presidential authority: He sent thousands of active-duty soldiers to the southern border to terrorize a distant caravan of desperate Central American migrants, announced plans to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship by executive order, and tweeted that law enforcement had been “strongly notified” to be on the lookout for “ILLEGAL VOTING.”

These measures failed to carry the day, and Trump will likely conclude that they were too timid. How much further might he go in 2020, when his own name is on the ballot—or sooner than that, if he’s facing impeachment by a House under Democratic control?

More is at stake here than the outcome of one or even two elections. Trump has long signaled his disdain for the concepts of limited presidential power and democratic rule. During his 2016 campaign, he praised murderous dictators. He declared that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, would be in jail if he were president, goading crowds into frenzied chants of “Lock her up.” He hinted that he might not accept an electoral loss. As democracies around the world slide into autocracy, and nationalism and antidemocratic sentiment are on vivid display among segments of the American populace, Trump’s evident hostility to key elements of liberal democracy cannot be dismissed as mere bluster.

Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpus—that is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial review—“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress.

Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

Note EU-Digest: As the Chinese saying goes "we are living in interesting times" 

Read more at: What Can a President Do During a State of Emergency? - The Atlantic

American Democracy on the rocks: Two Wings, Four Despotisms - by Paul Street

Democracy is trumped in the United States by multiple, overlapping, interrelated and mutually reinforcing forms of despotism. The Trump administration and the Trumpified Republican Party, backed by a cult-like base, embody a creepy, neofascistic variant of the disease.

The Republican White House and Senate are currently conducting a tasteless tutorial in tyranny, making a Monty Pythonesque mockery of the U.S. Constitution and “the rule of law.” The Great God Trump was caught red-handed setting the U.S. Founders’ wigs on fire by trying to trade military assistance and a White House visit to Ukraine’s newly elected president Volodomyr Zelensky in return for a Kiev press conference announcing an investigation based on a right-wing conspiracy theory meant to discredit Trump’s perceived U.S.-presidential rival, the conservative Democratic blowhard “Pool Chain” Joe Biden.

Confronted with this presidential misconduct by a “deep state” (likely CIA) whistleblower, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was compelled to overcome her reluctance to impeach the pestilential fiend who contaminates America and the world with his every vile emission.

The evidence of Trump’s criminal abuse of power is overwhelming. Equally convincing is the expert legal testimony contending that his offense is worthy of impeachment and removal.

UkraineGate is just one of the tangerine tyrant’s many mind-boggling misdeeds. It is far from his worst wrongdoing. Numerous other atrocities stand higher on the list of Trump’s most terrible transgressions: family separations at the border; kids in cages; the abrogation of asylum law; the pardoning of sociopathic war criminals and a fascist sheriff; the encouragement and sparking of lethal political violence; slashing Food Stamps and Medicaid for needy people deemed disposable; the proclamation of a fake national emergency; the failure to prepare for and respond adequately to deadly hurricanes; the continuation (over Congressional opposition) of U.S. participation in the crucifixion of Yemen; the diversion of taxpayer dollars to the construction of a hated nativist Wall; the message that Border Patrol agents should shoot asylum seekers and otherwise feel free to break the law; the sick campaign to remove tens of millions of people from health insurance; the cover provided for neo-Nazis and other white supremacists and for Saudi Arabia’s murderous vivisection of a dissident journalist; the reckless and monumentally criminal assassination of Iran’s top military commander; the malevolent acceleration of the carbon-capitalist war on livable ecology (for example); and…the list goes on.

Read the complete report: Two Wings, Four Despotisms - CounterPunch.org

EU must develop 'appetite for power' says foreign policy chief Josep Borrell

"We should be able to act, not everyday making comments or expressing concern," Europe's top diplomatic told the Munich Security Conference.

Read more at:
https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/16/eu-must-develop-appetite-for-power-says-foreign-policy-chief-josep-borrell

EU-Migration Policies: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits : by Jonathan Portes

 Migrants don’t steal jobs or bring down wages. Rather, they’re more likely to bring dynamism and prosperity

our years ago, Europeans were shocked by the photograph of the drowned three-year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi. Now, Americans are similarly horrified by pictures of El Salvadorans Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Angie Valeria, dead on the banks of the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, in the UK we are struggling with what our immigration policy should look like after Brexit, with Boris Johnson trying to have his cake and eat it with the promise of an “Australian-style points system”.
 
Few subjects are more politically charged than immigration. However, like free trade, it unites most economists, regardless of their politics. Immigrants don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much impact on wages. Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.

More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is generally positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.

The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single country in Europe having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” – population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix, will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.

If the economic benefits are clear, what explains the recent political backlash? What is the connection between the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of far-right populists in continental Europe? A decade on from the financial crisis, the political foundations of the postwar (and post-cold-war) liberal order appear to be crumbling.

But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes, the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US, Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme. In western European countries such as Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.

Twitter is full of lunatics who talk about “race replacement” or “white genocide”. But more respectable versions of much the same argument can be found in the mainstream press. London’s population is no longer majority “white British”, but most of us were born in the UK and even more identify as British (white, black, Asian or mixed) and have British citizenship. Nevertheless, the eminent economist Paul Collier claims that the “indigenous British [have] become a minority in their own capital”. Spectator writer Douglas Murray, who argues for reducing or eliminating Muslim immigration, says London has become a “foreign country”. Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist and author of Whiteshift, suggests that we should favour immigrants from ethnic or cultural backgrounds who are easier to “assimilate” into the white majority. The favourite philosopher of some Conservatives, Roger Scruton, thinks it’s impossible for the (British-born) children of Muslim immigrants to be loyal British citizens. So the view that only white people can be “really” British, and that black or Asian Britons are still somehow alien and threatening, remains prevalent in some elite circles.

Some argue that if progressive politicians fail to accommodate these views, they will drive their traditional voters to the populist right. But there’s little evidence that this will help those most vulnerable to the lure of rightwing populism or improve public perceptions of immigration. Instead, countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Spain have combined relatively open policies with public consent by building a pro-migration coalition across much of the political spectrum.

Germany offers a particularly striking example. Amid the panic about the refugee influx in 2015, I wrote that it was an opportunity more than a threat. But many argued that it would be impossible, economically, socially or politically, to absorb so many people from supposedly “alien” cultures. But three years on, while far from perfect, the balance sheet appears mostly positive. Refugees are learning German and getting jobs. Although the far right continues to try to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, crime is at its lowest level in almost 30 years.

Brexit, paradoxically, offers a window of opportunity. The most illiberal and restrictionist prime minister in living memory is about to depart. Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years. Both Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, as well as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, have signalled that they want an immigration policy better attuned to the needs of the UK economy.

Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let it slip away.  

Read more: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits | Jonathan Port

The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest 
Turkish-Digest 

For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com

US Labor Unions 200 years of struggle and final decline: History of Labor Unions in the US, incuding VIDEO

of Labor Unions in the US, incuding VIDEO

The lifespan of American labor unions is shaped like a bell-curve struggling to climb at first, then riding high, and finally today crashing out.

The whole up-and-down took about 200 years total. We need to go back to the 1830s. UC Santa Cruz Professor William Domhoff writes, "Industrial development in the early nineteenth century slowly widened the gap between employers and skilled workers, so the workers began to think of industrial factories as a threat to both their wages and status."

Craft unions began to form but stayed mostly local, focused on clout and working conditions. Then in 1869, Domhoff says, the Knights of Labor was founded as "a secret society by a handful of Philadelphia garment cutters, who had given up on their own craft union as having any chance to succeed" and turned to galvanizing other workers through meetings and parades.

Eventually, violence became part of the picture. The Great Railroad Strike of 1877, sparked by railroad companies slashing wages by 10% and doubling some workers'
responsibilities.

And while no major law ultimately clamped down on the groups, "unions came under attack — in the workplace, in the courts, and in public policy. As a result, union membership has fallen and income inequality has worsened — reaching levels not seen since the 1920s," says the,Economic Policy Institute. 

Read more at: History of Labor Unions in the US (VIDEO)

The US and Britain: The party is over

Read more at;
https://www.theglobalist.com/us-uk-trump-brexit-nationalism-isolationism/

EU: Can Europe learn to stop worrying and love power? - by Zaki Laidi

US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker may have averted a trade war last month, but the challenges confronting the European Union are far from resolved.

In today’s increasingly Hobbesian global environment, the EU can survive only by increasing its capacity to project power – no easy feat for an entity that was formed precisely as a repudiation of power politics.

With the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Europe shed what remained of its militaristic impulses and focused on building a sprawling and peaceful single market. From then on, Europe’s only means of projecting power would be its trade policy.

Read more: Can Europe learn to stop worrying and love power? | Asia Times

Global Politics: Europe must break the shackles and show off its power - by Professor Zaki Laidi

EU: Only in unity can progress be achieved

Zaki Laidi professor of international relations at L’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po), who also was an adviser to former French prime minister Manuel Valls. recently wrote in an opinion piece, which is not only worth reading, but also implementing as part of the EU's  Parliament and Commissions long range strategy.

 "US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker may have averted a trade war last month, but the challenges confronting the EU are far from resolved. In today’s increasingly Hobbesian global environment, the EU can survive only by increasing its capacity to project power — no easy feat for an entity that was formed precisely as a repudiation of power politics.

With the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Europe shed what remained of its militaristic impulses and focused on building a sprawling and peaceful single market. From then on, Europe’s only means of projecting power would be its trade policy. Yet that policy has never been guided by strategic thinking, leaving the EU with only limited global influence, despite its tremendous success in world markets. The time has come for Europe to reestablish itself as a true global player, not by attempting to emulate a classic superpower, but rather by consolidating and deploying different types of power.

Europe already has considerable normative power — that is, the capacity to create global standards through the so-called Brussels effect, which can be seen in its efforts to rein in technology companies.

The recently enacted General Data Protection Regulation, for example, set guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information of individuals within the EU. Now, digital platforms, including powerful American companies, are scrambling to adjust. The “big four” US tech firms — Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Apple, Facebook, and Amazon — are also facing pressure from the EU stemming from their dominant market position.

Yet the EU has often failed to recognize its normative power, let alone take full advantage of it. This both reflects and reinforces weakness in three areas: Self-esteem, risk awareness, and the capacity for action.

Self-esteem includes the belief that the EU is a worthy undertaking, the confidence to express that publicly, and recognition of the EU’s true potential for power projection. Such a dispensation is severely lacking in many parts of the EU, beginning with Germany, which, despite having regained confidence in its own future, jealously guards its resources.

As Trump berates Germany for accumulating surpluses without contributing sufficiently to transatlantic defense, the country should be all the more motivated to use its capabilities to strengthen Europe. But, while the discourse in Germany on resource-sharing has begun to shift, concrete changes will take time.

Europe’s unwillingness to nurture and deploy its clout contrasts sharply with America’s assertive use of its market power to advance its interests and preferences. For example, since Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — better known as the Iran nuclear deal — and reinstate sanctions on Iran, many European companies, fearing loss of access to the US market, have decided to withdraw from the country.

To convince European companies to remain in Iran, the European Commission updated the 1996 Blocking Statute, which forbids actors under EU jurisdiction from complying with extraterritorial sanctions, allows companies to recover damages from such sanctions, and nullifies the effect in the EU of any foreign court’s judgment based on them. But the update has proved ineffective, as exemplified by the situation faced by SWIFT, the secure messaging system used for global cross-border financial transactions.

As Iran learned in 2012, losing access to the SWIFT network essentially means losing access to the international financial system. Yet that is exactly what the US is pushing for: If SWIFT fails to cut off Iran by early November, it will face countermeasures. SWIFT’s compliance with that demand, however, would all but destroy any remaining incentive for Iran to remain in the JCPOA. This would amount to a major political failure for Europe, because SWIFT is under EU jurisdiction.

Europe has also shown a self-defeating lack of confidence in the euro. Although the euro is the world’s second most important currency, it lags behind the dollar on almost all metrics, increasing the EU’s vulnerability to US trade sanctions.

The second weakness the EU needs to address is risk awareness. For example, China needs access to Europe’s industrial technology to realize its economic ambitions, and it needs access to European ports to complete its Belt and Road Initiative. Yet Europe is allowing itself to be effectively plundered, not least by China’s takeover of ports and airport facilities. The EU-China relationship must be made more reciprocal, with the EU — and, in particular, the Southern and Eastern European countries that have welcomed Chinese investment with open arms — recognizing the security risks posed by Beijing’s activities.

For that to happen, however, Europe will need a more united approach to Russia, which, despite posing less of a threat to the EU than China does, is keen to highlight — and exacerbate — internal division. How can one blame Greece for selling ports to the Chinese while Germany pursues the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which will increase Europe’s energy dependency on Russia?

All of this is complicated by escalating tensions between Europe and the US, which, among other things, is spoiling cooperation to contain China. This is where the capacity for action comes in. Rather than waiting for someone else to push back against the Trump administration’s demolition of multilateral structures, Europe must take the initiative, imagining a system without the US.

This means not only ensuring that the international trade regime can survive without the US, but also developing a military capability that can increase the EU’s geopolitical credibility and shift the global balance of power. Here, French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to create a European military force beyond NATO is essential. Its success will hinge on a united, cooperative approach that potentially even includes the UK. The challenge is obvious. But the payoff — for the EU and the world — would be well worth the effort ". 

Note EU-Digest: Hopefully European political leaders at all levels of the European political spectrum will take note of this report by Professor Zaki Laidi. Europe must show far more courage to quickly undo itself from the US directed policy shackles and choose it's own independent course. If not, it will be devoured country by country in today’s increasingly Hobbesian global environment.

EU-Digest

EU: France tells Germany ‘it’s now or never’ to save the EU – by Bruno Le Maire

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, speaking in German to a business conference in Berlin, offered the first official response from Paris to new European reform proposals from Chancellor Angela Merkel.

He welcomed the blueprint laid out by Merkel in a newspaper interview last weekend, highlighting her support for French President Emmanuel Macron’s idea for a euro zone budget.

“But we have a way to go in order to get to a common position that is ambitious and targeted,” Le Maire said, noting that Europe needed “the means” to foster closer economic convergence and to react to crises.

“Our European future is at stake. We must act, it is now or never,” Le Maire added.

Macron has sketched out a far-reaching vision for Europe in a series of speeches over the past year. But until Sunday, Merkel had not offered a detailed response.

While supporting the idea of an investment budget for the single currency bloc, she said this should be in the low double-digit billions of euros, far smaller than what Macron wants.

She backed a strengthening of the euro zone’s ESM bailout mechanism, but her calls for it to take on economic surveillance responsibilities that currently housed in the European Commission are unlikely to be welcomed in Paris.

Read more: France tells Germany ‘it’s now or never’ to save the EU – EURACTIV.com

Germany: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dangerous-by Fred Kaplan

The fallout from President Trump’s disastrous trip to Europe continues to poison the trans-Atlantic climate. His comments about Germany have been particularly toxic—and, beyond that, stupid, reflecting no understanding of the country’s strategic importance or its dreadful history.

Chancellor Angela Merkel stated the matter plainly in a speech on Sunday in Bavaria. Europeans “must take our fate into our own hands,” she said, because the “times in which we could rely fully on others … are somewhat over.” This, she added, “is what I experienced in the last few days”—a reference to Trump’s behavior in Brussels and Rome, where, among other bits of rudeness, he declined to pay even lip service to the pledge, enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, that the United States would defend any member of NATO that comes under attack.

As if in piqued response, Trump tweeted on Tuesday, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO and military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” While overseas, Trump had reportedly told Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Union, “The Germans are bad, very bad. Look at the millions of cars that they’re selling in the USA. Horrible. We’re gonna stop that.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer denied the report, which appeared in Der Spiegel, but Trump’s Tuesday tweet undercut the denial and underscored his complaint. It wasn’t some loose remark, he seemed to be saying; he meant it.

But Trump’s ire is misplaced or unwise on several levels. First, yes, Americans buy a lot of German cars, but this isn’t because Germany is dumping BMWs and Volkswagens on the U.S. market; it’s because a lot of Americans like those cars. Second, as my colleague Daniel Gross has pointed out, lots of those German cars are made in the United States; a BMW plant in South Carolina—the company’s biggest plant in the world—churns out 400,000 cars a year.

The thing is, Trump knows this. When Merkel visited Washington in March, she brought along the CEOs of BMW, Siemens, and Schaeffler, an industrial-parts manufacturer, who met with Trump for an hour, briefing him on their $300 billion investment in the American economy and the 750,000 American jobs that their plants had created. By all accounts, Trump was impressed.

Perhaps the most wondrous thing about the world that took form after World War II has been the absence of war between the longstanding rivals in Europe—not just the absence of wars but the disappearance of the notion that European wars were inevitable. This feat didn’t come about by some miracle or accident. It was the result of painstaking effort to build an alliance based on shared values and common interests, requiring trillions of dollars in aid and investment, the maintenance of massive military bases, and—in particularly trying times—a crisis or two that risked another, far more cataclysmic war. It is this alliance—and the international order on which it stands—that Trump’s tantrums and indifference are endangering.

European leaders realized last week (you could see it on their faces as they watched Trump speak)—that the alliance will be in some degree of abeyance as long as this guy is president.

It may be no coincidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chief foreign-policy goal is to restore the old Soviet Union. He can do that only if the European Union is weakened and the ties between the United States and Europe are severed. He may have reason to believe that his dream might come true. Whatever the probes reveal about Trump’s ties or obligations (or lack of any connections whatever) to Russia, his signs of indifference to the fate of Europe are no doubt causing Putin to salivate more than he thought he ever would.
 

Read more: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dang

Russia-USA Relations: Trump and Putin’s New "Oligarchic International" - by Alexei Bayer

Ever since Donald Trump began running for President of the United States, he has managed to heap abuse on pretty much everyone.

His targets range from the Mexicans to the Chinese and include plenty of Americans, from actress Meryl Streep to Rep. John Lewis.

The one man who can do no wrong by Trump is Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

It may seem like a strange affinity between a fat cat real estate developer and an ex-KGB colonel who devoted the first half of his life to the cause of burying capitalism.

There have been claims that Putin holds “kompromat” on Trump – damaging materials such as sex tapes – forcing the new U.S. president to sing to Putin’s tune.

While such kompromat material may exist, there is a less conspiratorial explanation why the two are bromancing together — and what kind of world order they are starting to build jointly.

“The working men have no country,” Marx and Engels declared in their Communist Manifesto back in 1848. They famously called for the proletariat of the world to unite because they regarded nationality was a fake distinction. What truly mattered, they said, was class solidarity.

The first Socialist International was founded in London in 1864 and “The Internationale” became its anthem.

The global super-rich class emerged nearly four decades ago. Its members hail from different countries and different walks of life. They have different professional backgrounds and earn their money in a variety of legal, semi-legal and criminal ways.

They ranged from the heirs of the Rothschilds to wildly successful tech entrepreneurs and the investors who backed them.

The class includes financial speculators, bankers, heads of publicly traded companies, with their huge bonuses and golden parachutes, sports and entertainment superstars and so on.
And, of course, let’s not forget the kleptocrats, the oil sheiks and the drug barons.

Each in his own way, Trump and Putin are extreme exemplars of this group. Putin is probably the world’s richest – and most shameless – kleptocrat. He has turned Russia into the world’s first nuclear armed mafia state.

His policy of destabilizing the United States and the European Union and whipping up nationalism at home has been designed with one purpose in mind – to keep himself and his super-rich cronies in power.

Putin claims to be a Russian patriot, but he is bleeding Russia dry and shamelessly, but effectively corrupting all of its institutions.

Trump is not just a billionaire himself (even though no one knows for sure whether he is, because he tends to exaggerate his net worth). His business model also directly caters to them, since his buildings attract the super-wealthy.

Contrary to his sloganeering, Trump doesn’t give a damn about America (and “making it great again.”) Short of finally triggering an American Revolution – an event for which the world is still waiting — America can hardly be any “greater” for him and his ilk than it is right now.

n fact, Trump seems to hate the United States, to judge from how viciously he attacks other Americans and how he is now debasing a proud American institution, the Presidency. Needless to say, like any true oligarch, he has paid no taxes for years.

Trump may wear a stars ‘n’ stripes lapel pin, but his loyalty lies elsewhere — with the nation of the super-rich. He and Putin are countrymen.

It has been asserted that once he assumes the presidency, Trump will sacrifice American interests in favor of Russian ones. It is a mistake to make that assumption.

Putin cares as little about Russia as Trump does about America. The two only care about making the world safe for themselves and all the other super-rich. They might was well adopt a common slogan: Oligarchs of the World Unite!

Read more: Trump and Putin’s New "Oligarchic International" - The Globalist

USA: President Trump's Fourteen Points - Will he keep them ?

Exit polls indicate that only 37 percent of voters thought President-elect Donald Trump “qualified to be president.”

Only 34 percent, said he had “the right personality and temperament for the office.”

In many states, voters simply refused to choose between Hillary Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, for example, some 90,000 voted but refused to make any choice at all for President

As was the case for Al Gore in the 2000 election against George W. Bush, Clinton had the support of more voters than her opponent. 

Nevertheless, under our constitution, Trump will soon take the oath of office as President of the United States of America.

The citizens of the US will be honor bound to salute the new president’s rank, despite all his failings as a man. Both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already done so, with grace and style, as was their duty.

That said, saluting Trump’s new rank does not mean one must ignore the man or condone his behavior, either as president or as a private citizen.

What policies or actions promoted by President-elect Trump can we all agree on and support for the greater good of our country?

The following 14 points, all given voice and supported by Trump at some point during his mean-spirited campaign, would seem to form a basis for moving the US forward in a positive and bipartisan spirit.

1. A massive initiative to rebuild/improve/repair our infrastructure. (October 2016)

2. Improve the military but reduce the defense budget. (October 2015)

3. Accept gay marriage. (August 2015)

4. Agree that Stop-&-frisk is unconstitutional. (September 2016)

5. Support paid family leave. (September 2016)

6. Serve as an honest broker and negotiate a lasting treaty of peace between Israel and her enemies. (February 2016)

7. Condemn Russian & any other country’s involvement in our elections. (October 2016)

8. Promote maximum representation and maximum voter participation. (Apr 2016)

9. Educate the public on value of comprehensive vaccinations. (October 2016)

10. Institute some form of universal health care. (July 2000)

11. Fix veteran’s hospitals, and pay private doctors to treat vets in the meantime. (September 2015)

12. Raise minimum wages, nationally and in the states. (May 2016)

13. Get rid of carried interest deduction for brokers (October 2016)

14. Support the exploration of space (October 2016)

Let’s hope, and work hard to make sure, that President Trump’s first 100 days are both productive and bipartisan – on the points that lift us all up. There is at least some ground for agreement.

Read more: President Trump's Fourteen Points - The Globalist