The rumblings prompted by US President Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of US Vice President J.D. Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.
On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN Security Council has been largely paralyzed by the split between the five permanent members — Russia and China on one side; the US, France and the UK on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticize Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution — while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.
Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it — along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others.
“These are not our friends,” Republican Senator John Curtis wrote on X.
The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Trump occupies the White House. French President Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, was likely to find the task somewhat harder yesterday.) The French president was adroit in flattering Trump even as he told the truth. However, it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. Those are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.
A committed Atlanticist such as Christian Democratic Union leader Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US, because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe.” He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about NATO in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Trump might do, but what he might not. NATO is built on the conviction that countries would stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Trump is president.
When Starmer told members of parliament on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed,” he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-UK alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.
The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-World War II order, Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words, and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose — they might offer minimal respite and buy a little time — but it would require common will to defend the interests of European states. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS