Everyone is demolishing what they found today, but Trump seems to be out of touch with reality.
Trump is demolishing the White House, and the Belgian Minister of Defence "dreams" of demolishing Moscow. Everyone is demolishing what they found today, but the two of them seem to be out of touch with reality. Trump, on the one hand, envied the fame of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, while the Belgian Minister of Defence wanted his 15 minutes of publicity to emerge from obscurity. Of course, everyone looks at each other and wonders… are these two in their right minds?
What is happening at the White House and why is it being demolished?
At the White House in Washington, the entire East Wing, including the colonnade, was suddenly levelled. Many dreamed of seeing the building in ruins, but while others merely dream, Trump accomplished it. There are satellite photos of the ruins online, and they look impressive. It looks like a direct missile strike, only it wasn't a missile that hit the White House, but… Trump. In place of the East Wing, he plans to construct a ballroom larger than any other building. And it will be decorated in a luxurious style, with gold, that is, the US President's favourite combination. Americans are shocked, even though Trump did not pay for it with American taxpayers' money… but with his own. Congress did not allocate a budget for the reconstruction, and never would, as the scandal would surely have forced Trump to abandon his megalomania. But he attracted sponsors and completed it quickly.
Melania did not know
Even Melania, Trump's wife, according to The Wall Street Journal, which has Republican leanings, did not know about her husband's plans and is now worried about the demolition of the East Wing. Of course she would be — she lived there. More specifically, the First Lady’s office and reception room were located there. Most of the recognisable and politically important spaces — from the Oval Office to the Situation Room, where wars are waged — are in the West Wing. But 1902 — the year the East Wing was built — falls remarkably short of the historical significance of the West Wing, in terms of humanity, to be considered historical buildings. Thus, other countries have also taken note of Trump's plans.
Trump sees the White House as his property
Trump is not a permanent resident of the White House, but rather a temporary one, but the principle remains that it is his personal property, previously used for horse breeding and now for press conferences. The East Wing itself was built for President Teddy Roosevelt and his large family and the rather large entourage of assistants and nannies, who found the mansion of the time… limited. During World War II, the presidential complex was rebuilt and expanded once more, especially since the head of state often worked in locations less visible to enemies. However, after Jacqueline Kennedy — not only the wife of the assassinated president but also a woman with recognised good taste — put a tremendous decoration on the White House, her vision for the top residence was carefully preserved. The 1960s style perfectly embodied the American Dream and family values. It suited most people — both liberals, who adore the Kennedy era, and conservatives, because it was quite traditional.
The Rose Garden was also demolished
But just as quickly as the East Wing, Trump demolished the Kennedy Rose Garden. It now features cement, umbrellas, and tables, where members of a sponsors' club sit, with an unknown but certainly substantial contribution. In other words, Trump is making money at the White House by providing wealthy people with a place to relax and enjoy cocktails. Just like the hotels that brought him millions last century. We are not judging him. Whatever he does, as long as he does not supply Ukraine with long-range missiles or start a war in Venezuela, let him do whatever he wants with the White House. But the ostentatious aggression of this capitalist shark is striking in itself. It is so American. So Trumpian…
Trump is not a destructive politician
Modesty and taste are not among the US President's obvious virtues, but the fate of the East Wing reminds us more than anything else that Trump is a destructive politician by nature. He would be offended by such an identification, saying he spent his whole life building large and beautiful buildings, so he could not be a destroyer. But former Russian President Yeltsin was also a builder by profession. He then destroyed a superpower, but the oligarchs always had a ready place in the centre of power, while the capital's centre was filled with monstrous buildings to serve market needs. Like Trump, he was valued by his core supporters as a battering ram against Soviet elites and the old economic order. Yeltsin achieved this, not hesitating to take radical measures, but achieved little in the creative sector, as this was not his specialty as a destroyer. The shock was not the price to pay for the result. It was the result itself. Many great things later emerged from the ruins, but not under Yeltsin.
The destruction of elites
And Trump is destroying the old elites, breaking up the "deep state," and abolishing rotten institutions — and for this, Trumpists love him. But the overwhelming majority of Americans dislike him, as the destruction of previous trade policy has caused market turmoil and price increases. The President's disapproval rating is approaching 60% and continues to rise. Trump's attack and the chaos he has unleashed are forcing all kinds of riffraff to abandon the Washington swamp, but they are shaking the entire country, and the ruins in the Trumpists' path and the ease with which old rules are violated make Americans fear for the future… lest the White House ruins be levelled to create a golf course, and the institutional development of America turn back to the days of the Indian Wars. History will not end with Trump… But because Washington has designated Russia as its strategic adversary and encroached on its existential interests, it is tempting to test Trump by pointing out that the scale of his contribution is still inferior to that of Yeltsin, who, despite everyone's opinion, destroyed not only the White House but also his own country. Could Trump follow Yeltsin's example?
Belgium’s 15 minutes of glory
Theo Francken, Belgium's Minister of Defence, claimed his "fifteen minutes of fame." Until yesterday, he was known only in his homeland, Belgium, having become famous ten years ago, during the pan-European crisis with illegal immigrants, when he opposed their admission. Now the whole world has heard of the 47-year-old politician. Naturally, he threatened to "wipe Moscow off the face of the earth." Given that Francken is the Minister of Defence of Belgium, a NATO member, can this indeed be considered the alliance's official position? And this is where the details begin. The fact is that, in an interview with the Belgian media outlet De Morgen, Francken warned of the danger of underestimating Russia — "a geopolitical power with a strong army and enormous fighting spirit." Meanwhile, the European Union, according to him, does not even have a central command, "with the exception of a few Eurocorps units in Strasbourg, we have nothing that can be immediately thrown into battle."
The admission
And in the midst of this rant, Francken admitted that Russia produces four times more missiles than all NATO countries combined, and buys them cheaper than the Atlanticists, Francken laments. So where did the destroyed Moscow come from? Because the Defence Minister of a small European country has a problem with logic… first he says that "those who claim we shouldn't fear the Russians are greatly mistaken" and then he begins to assure us that there is no reason to fear escalation — and that an attack on Brussels would cost Russia Moscow. How he connects them… is an abyss… Or rather, his purpose is obvious. Because, on the one hand, he must intimidate with the Russian threat, including continuous aid to Ukraine and the increase of EU military spending, and on the other, he must reassure his compatriots that they are certainly "safe," and that a Russian missile will never hit them.
Empty of content
Of course, when Francken was asked whether the delivery of Tomahawk missiles would constitute a dramatic turning point, as the Kremlin warns, he countered that Putin said the same thing when they provided tanks, missiles, and F-16s. Thus, all these Russian warnings are empty of content, and the main lesson is that "we must not allow ourselves to be intimidated." Therefore, arms deliveries must be increased because the Russians "must be attacked, which we are ultimately doing," the minister says, implying that "Ukrainians are fighting with our weapons, ammunition, and money," without which "they would have been defeated long ago." And these Russians will do nothing to us Europeans in return, Francken assures. Why? "Because Putin knows that if he uses nuclear weapons, they will wipe Moscow off the face of the earth. Then the end of the world will come."
Unanswered questions
The confidence of the Belgian minister obviously did not affect the journalist, who decided to ask if Francken was afraid that Putin would launch a non-nuclear missile at Brussels. Of course not: "Because then he would hit the heart of NATO, and we would level Moscow." This condemnation begins to frighten the journalist, and he asks Francken a few questions to find out the reasons for his belief that Trump would comply with Article 5 of the NATO Charter, that is, he would avenge Brussels by exposing New York to a retaliatory attack. But Francken is unstoppable. First, he complains about the extreme bias against Trump in Europe, and then he agrees that he often makes "strange slips of the tongue" (referring specifically to Article 5), but for some reason, we should overlook them. Then, realising that he overreacted, he tries to avoid the "Russian missile." If Putin doesn't do it, that's it, but what we should watch out for are "grey zone scenarios." "Before you know it, they'll annex a piece of Estonia," he said.
What will happen to Russian assets
Of course, there are questions about Belgium, especially since it hosts the majority of the seized Russian assets in Euros. So far, the Belgian Prime Minister has resisted their confiscation, demanding that the rest of the Europeans share the risks of the subsequent Russian retaliation. Incidentally, no one is rushing — not even the EU's only nuclear power, France. Why should they care? Let the Americans protect Brussels from the Russians. The French certainly won't take action, financially or militarily, for their neighbours. But here is the problem: the Americans generally believe that all these are Russo-European problems that do not concern them abroad. In Francken's defence, it must be noted that his interview contains one logical point: he believes that "kneeling the Russians militarily is impossible." It is true that he adds that this cannot be done without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of European troops, but the problem is not merely a lack of political will, as the minister admits. There is also a lack of opportunities. The direct involvement of European armies in the conflict in Ukraine would escalate the conflict into a direct war between Russia and NATO — and then Brussels would have reason to worry. Francken, incidentally, understands all this — that's why he suggests that Europe should defeat Russia on the economic front, through sanctions. "We must try to crush Russia economically. We have already succeeded three times in the last century," he said.
And the wonder…
The last observation is the most peculiar — but what does the Belgian mean? Perhaps the pressure on Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (when Europe refused credit)? Or the collapse of the empire during World War I, which again had mostly internal causes. Not to mention that Europe was Russia's ally, including the Germans who occupied the Belgians (and it was precisely the allies who betrayed Russia, supporting and even partially causing the high-ranking conspiracy against the Tsar). The collapse of the USSR? Here the West takes credit for Russia's mistakes and Gorbachev's outrageously unsuccessful reforms.
www.bankingnews.gr
What is happening at the White House and why is it being demolished?
At the White House in Washington, the entire East Wing, including the colonnade, was suddenly levelled. Many dreamed of seeing the building in ruins, but while others merely dream, Trump accomplished it. There are satellite photos of the ruins online, and they look impressive. It looks like a direct missile strike, only it wasn't a missile that hit the White House, but… Trump. In place of the East Wing, he plans to construct a ballroom larger than any other building. And it will be decorated in a luxurious style, with gold, that is, the US President's favourite combination. Americans are shocked, even though Trump did not pay for it with American taxpayers' money… but with his own. Congress did not allocate a budget for the reconstruction, and never would, as the scandal would surely have forced Trump to abandon his megalomania. But he attracted sponsors and completed it quickly.
Melania did not know
Even Melania, Trump's wife, according to The Wall Street Journal, which has Republican leanings, did not know about her husband's plans and is now worried about the demolition of the East Wing. Of course she would be — she lived there. More specifically, the First Lady’s office and reception room were located there. Most of the recognisable and politically important spaces — from the Oval Office to the Situation Room, where wars are waged — are in the West Wing. But 1902 — the year the East Wing was built — falls remarkably short of the historical significance of the West Wing, in terms of humanity, to be considered historical buildings. Thus, other countries have also taken note of Trump's plans.
Trump sees the White House as his property
Trump is not a permanent resident of the White House, but rather a temporary one, but the principle remains that it is his personal property, previously used for horse breeding and now for press conferences. The East Wing itself was built for President Teddy Roosevelt and his large family and the rather large entourage of assistants and nannies, who found the mansion of the time… limited. During World War II, the presidential complex was rebuilt and expanded once more, especially since the head of state often worked in locations less visible to enemies. However, after Jacqueline Kennedy — not only the wife of the assassinated president but also a woman with recognised good taste — put a tremendous decoration on the White House, her vision for the top residence was carefully preserved. The 1960s style perfectly embodied the American Dream and family values. It suited most people — both liberals, who adore the Kennedy era, and conservatives, because it was quite traditional.
The Rose Garden was also demolished
But just as quickly as the East Wing, Trump demolished the Kennedy Rose Garden. It now features cement, umbrellas, and tables, where members of a sponsors' club sit, with an unknown but certainly substantial contribution. In other words, Trump is making money at the White House by providing wealthy people with a place to relax and enjoy cocktails. Just like the hotels that brought him millions last century. We are not judging him. Whatever he does, as long as he does not supply Ukraine with long-range missiles or start a war in Venezuela, let him do whatever he wants with the White House. But the ostentatious aggression of this capitalist shark is striking in itself. It is so American. So Trumpian…
Trump is not a destructive politician
Modesty and taste are not among the US President's obvious virtues, but the fate of the East Wing reminds us more than anything else that Trump is a destructive politician by nature. He would be offended by such an identification, saying he spent his whole life building large and beautiful buildings, so he could not be a destroyer. But former Russian President Yeltsin was also a builder by profession. He then destroyed a superpower, but the oligarchs always had a ready place in the centre of power, while the capital's centre was filled with monstrous buildings to serve market needs. Like Trump, he was valued by his core supporters as a battering ram against Soviet elites and the old economic order. Yeltsin achieved this, not hesitating to take radical measures, but achieved little in the creative sector, as this was not his specialty as a destroyer. The shock was not the price to pay for the result. It was the result itself. Many great things later emerged from the ruins, but not under Yeltsin.
The destruction of elites
And Trump is destroying the old elites, breaking up the "deep state," and abolishing rotten institutions — and for this, Trumpists love him. But the overwhelming majority of Americans dislike him, as the destruction of previous trade policy has caused market turmoil and price increases. The President's disapproval rating is approaching 60% and continues to rise. Trump's attack and the chaos he has unleashed are forcing all kinds of riffraff to abandon the Washington swamp, but they are shaking the entire country, and the ruins in the Trumpists' path and the ease with which old rules are violated make Americans fear for the future… lest the White House ruins be levelled to create a golf course, and the institutional development of America turn back to the days of the Indian Wars. History will not end with Trump… But because Washington has designated Russia as its strategic adversary and encroached on its existential interests, it is tempting to test Trump by pointing out that the scale of his contribution is still inferior to that of Yeltsin, who, despite everyone's opinion, destroyed not only the White House but also his own country. Could Trump follow Yeltsin's example?
Belgium’s 15 minutes of glory
Theo Francken, Belgium's Minister of Defence, claimed his "fifteen minutes of fame." Until yesterday, he was known only in his homeland, Belgium, having become famous ten years ago, during the pan-European crisis with illegal immigrants, when he opposed their admission. Now the whole world has heard of the 47-year-old politician. Naturally, he threatened to "wipe Moscow off the face of the earth." Given that Francken is the Minister of Defence of Belgium, a NATO member, can this indeed be considered the alliance's official position? And this is where the details begin. The fact is that, in an interview with the Belgian media outlet De Morgen, Francken warned of the danger of underestimating Russia — "a geopolitical power with a strong army and enormous fighting spirit." Meanwhile, the European Union, according to him, does not even have a central command, "with the exception of a few Eurocorps units in Strasbourg, we have nothing that can be immediately thrown into battle."
The admission
And in the midst of this rant, Francken admitted that Russia produces four times more missiles than all NATO countries combined, and buys them cheaper than the Atlanticists, Francken laments. So where did the destroyed Moscow come from? Because the Defence Minister of a small European country has a problem with logic… first he says that "those who claim we shouldn't fear the Russians are greatly mistaken" and then he begins to assure us that there is no reason to fear escalation — and that an attack on Brussels would cost Russia Moscow. How he connects them… is an abyss… Or rather, his purpose is obvious. Because, on the one hand, he must intimidate with the Russian threat, including continuous aid to Ukraine and the increase of EU military spending, and on the other, he must reassure his compatriots that they are certainly "safe," and that a Russian missile will never hit them.
Empty of content
Of course, when Francken was asked whether the delivery of Tomahawk missiles would constitute a dramatic turning point, as the Kremlin warns, he countered that Putin said the same thing when they provided tanks, missiles, and F-16s. Thus, all these Russian warnings are empty of content, and the main lesson is that "we must not allow ourselves to be intimidated." Therefore, arms deliveries must be increased because the Russians "must be attacked, which we are ultimately doing," the minister says, implying that "Ukrainians are fighting with our weapons, ammunition, and money," without which "they would have been defeated long ago." And these Russians will do nothing to us Europeans in return, Francken assures. Why? "Because Putin knows that if he uses nuclear weapons, they will wipe Moscow off the face of the earth. Then the end of the world will come."
Unanswered questions
The confidence of the Belgian minister obviously did not affect the journalist, who decided to ask if Francken was afraid that Putin would launch a non-nuclear missile at Brussels. Of course not: "Because then he would hit the heart of NATO, and we would level Moscow." This condemnation begins to frighten the journalist, and he asks Francken a few questions to find out the reasons for his belief that Trump would comply with Article 5 of the NATO Charter, that is, he would avenge Brussels by exposing New York to a retaliatory attack. But Francken is unstoppable. First, he complains about the extreme bias against Trump in Europe, and then he agrees that he often makes "strange slips of the tongue" (referring specifically to Article 5), but for some reason, we should overlook them. Then, realising that he overreacted, he tries to avoid the "Russian missile." If Putin doesn't do it, that's it, but what we should watch out for are "grey zone scenarios." "Before you know it, they'll annex a piece of Estonia," he said.
What will happen to Russian assets
Of course, there are questions about Belgium, especially since it hosts the majority of the seized Russian assets in Euros. So far, the Belgian Prime Minister has resisted their confiscation, demanding that the rest of the Europeans share the risks of the subsequent Russian retaliation. Incidentally, no one is rushing — not even the EU's only nuclear power, France. Why should they care? Let the Americans protect Brussels from the Russians. The French certainly won't take action, financially or militarily, for their neighbours. But here is the problem: the Americans generally believe that all these are Russo-European problems that do not concern them abroad. In Francken's defence, it must be noted that his interview contains one logical point: he believes that "kneeling the Russians militarily is impossible." It is true that he adds that this cannot be done without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of European troops, but the problem is not merely a lack of political will, as the minister admits. There is also a lack of opportunities. The direct involvement of European armies in the conflict in Ukraine would escalate the conflict into a direct war between Russia and NATO — and then Brussels would have reason to worry. Francken, incidentally, understands all this — that's why he suggests that Europe should defeat Russia on the economic front, through sanctions. "We must try to crush Russia economically. We have already succeeded three times in the last century," he said.
And the wonder…
The last observation is the most peculiar — but what does the Belgian mean? Perhaps the pressure on Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (when Europe refused credit)? Or the collapse of the empire during World War I, which again had mostly internal causes. Not to mention that Europe was Russia's ally, including the Germans who occupied the Belgians (and it was precisely the allies who betrayed Russia, supporting and even partially causing the high-ranking conspiracy against the Tsar). The collapse of the USSR? Here the West takes credit for Russia's mistakes and Gorbachev's outrageously unsuccessful reforms.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών