Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy"

Revision as of 15:08, January 16, 2019

World Bank women entrepreneurs fund

President Trump announced the U.S. would give $50 million to this fund.[1][2][3][4] This was widely reported in the media, but I don't see any good reason to add it to the article. Besides, that money could be used to fund the wall that leftists and RINO Republicans say is "too expensive." --1990'sguy (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

Please explain your observation "that money could be used to fund the wall that leftists and RINO Republicans say is 'too expensive.'" I understood that President Trump promised to make Mexico pay for it and that it will cost much more than $50 million. JDano (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

This is just a suggestion, and I do not plan on adding this to the article. But to reply to your comment, the establishment RINOs and leftist Dems in Congress do not like the idea of building a wall, nor do they like the idea of Mexico paying for it. It could easily be done (such as by passing Cruz's bill to use El Chapo's money). But if they don't want to do it, Trump needs to find other ways of securing funding. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Also, the wall was not my main reason for not adding it to the article. It does not seem very significant (unless you can show me otherwise). I was just pointing it out here. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Victory in Mosul

This is probably not appropriate to add as an achievement (and at the same time, it might be considered a military achievement), but Iraq, with U.S. help, retook Mosul,[5][6][7] and the Saudi king congratulated Trump for the takeover. It seems that at least some people are giving Trump some credit for this.[8] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Misleading bullet item about "Meeting with 50% more foreign leaders"

The bullet point references a Breitbart item that lists President Trump meeting with 28 "foreign leaders" through July 6 vs. 19 for Obama. It notes that this excludes phone calls or meetings held around the G-8 or G-20, and "excludes Obama’s June 2009 meeting with Zimbabwe’s then-Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, since President Robert Mugabe held real power, and the position of prime minister was later abolished." It is further selective because it discounts Obama's trip to Europe and Africa: on July 7, Obama met with Putin, on July 8, Obama met with the Prime Minister of Italy, on July 9, Obama attended the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in L’Aquila, Italy; on July 10, Obama met with the Pope, and on July 11, Obama flew to Ghana. So, if we took today as the cut off point, the results would be significantly different. In any event, face-to-face meetings without results is not a good way to measure a President's "achievements", so this metric is both silly and mismeasured. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the message. I changed the bullet point to make the mention more accurate. I still think it should stay, because it dispels the notion that Trump is an "isolationist" or that he does not have an active foreign policy. And besides, I don't think the Breitbart article counts Trump's meetings with foreign leaders at the G7 summit. Noting these things is enough. People come up with different criteria for things like this, this article accurately reports one of them. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Do you have other sources that discuss the number of Trump vs. Obama foreign meetings so far? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

I listed https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov which does report on all Presidential meetings. The point is that when Obama went to Europe and Africa, he announced various initiatives and agreements, much like Trump announced a new truce in Syria. So, we should be counting "achievements" not "face-to-face meetings." JDano (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

No, I meant sources reporting on the number of Trump meetings as opposed to Obama meetings. Breitbart, or whoever counted the number of meetings, also left out Trump phone calls and summit meetings in addition to Obama. You seem concerned about how Obama's meetings are not counted, but the article does not seem to count Trump's G7 meetings, and it was published just before he went to the G20 summit, which would have greatly increased Trump's number of meetings if those met the criterion to be included. Bottom line: the Breitbart article has consistent criteria, and it is thus appropriate to cite, and it is not misleading because it identifies the criteria for how it counts the number of meetings. If you have another source that uses different criteria, I will most likely also add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Other than the one Breitbart article, I have not seen anyone think that counting the number of in-person meetings with foreign leaders is a meaningful exercise. If you include the G-20 meetings and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, the two counts are very close. If you exclude the G-20 meetings but go through July 18, rather than July 6, Obama moves ahead on this artificial metric. I am saying that this one author was cherry-picking his data. Why not focus of achievements rather than face-to-face meetings? Should we give bonus points for address the nation's Parliament? How about a half-point for a phone call? Nobody I have asked thinks that "keeping score" in this fashion makes any sense. The bullet does not "dispel[] the notion that Trump is an 'isolationist' or that he does not have an active foreign policy." Rather it feeds the false narrative that Trump is trying to touch as many bases as possible for future hotels instead of achieving foreign policy successes. I would delete it as having no encyclopedic value. Perhaps others have views? JDano (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2017 (EDT)

That bullet point does not feed into any narrative that Trump is running foreign policy to build more hotels. Besides, Breitbart News has a pro-Trump editorial stance -- the article makes clear the significance of this fact, and it has nothing to do with hotels. The criteria are clear and consistent. Politicians can call each other whenever they want. Actually going to another country to meet its leader (or vice-versa) face-to-face is a big deal because it shows serious interest in forming good national relations. The bullet point will stay, and I have already changed it to note the criteria it used and the significance of it. Please, stop targeting Breitbart articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2017 (EDT)

Withholding money from Pakistan

The Trump Administration is withholding $50 million in military aid from Pakistan because the country was not taking enough action against the Haqqani network.[9][10] Interesting to note, but probably not significant enough to add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2017 (EDT)

Trump is now threatening to stop funding Pakistan entirely.[11][12][13] We'll see what ultimately happens. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2018 (EST)

The U.S. is withdholding $255 million from Pakistan: [14] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2018 (EST)

Apparently, the money hasn't already been withheld yet, but is planned to be withheld rather than giving it this coming year: [15] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2018 (EST)

It seems to be official now: [16][17][18] Might be good to add now. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2018 (EST)

Very nice! Yes, this seems like a good one to add. --David B ^(TALK) 00:38, 5 January 2018 (EST)

The Trump Administration may possibly try to "reset" relations with Pakistan, which may possibly involve restoring some of the funding: [19] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2018 (EDT)

However, the State Department just said that Pakistan is still helping the Taliban: [20] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

Other "withholding money" news (incl. Palestine)

More articles on the U.S.'s Palestine funding cuts (that I didn't add to the article): 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (EST)

The Trump Administration may take further actions against Palestine and the UN refugee agency: [21] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2018 (EST)

The Administration may end funding for several UN agencies and conventions that recognize the Palestinians: [22] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

John Bolten stated that the U.S. will end funding for the UN Human Rights Council: 1,2 Hopefully, this will happen. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

President Trump reportedly has frozen $200 million set to go to recovery efforts in Syria (1,2,3,4,5), with this news coming as Trump stated that he wants to pull out of Syria.[23][24] It's probably best that we wait to see how this plays out before adding it, since these are only reports and the State Department decided to spend the money only shortly before this decision was made. Regardless, this is a good development. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

More news and commentary on Syria: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration reportedly stopped funding to Palestine, though the administration is denying this (since very few media outlets have actually covered this, I'm strongly inclined to not believe the reports and keep the info out, though it's still good to note it here): 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration will reportedly stop funding UNRWA: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is reviewing what it will do in response to the Palestinians trying to join UN agencies: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (EST)

Hopefully, Trump will follow Cruz's advice on defunding UN agencies that accept Palestine: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Interesting article on why the Trump Administration hasn't cut more foreign aid so far: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

Trump wants South Korea to pay more for U.S. troops in the country: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (EST)

Increasing foreign aid

The U.S. will give $16 million to refugees fleeing Venezuela: 1,2,3 Not only is this wasteful, but the money will be given indirectly -- going through the UN before ever reaching the refugees. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Mike Pompeo pledged to provide $300 million in security funding for Southeast Asia: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2018 (EDT)

Trump signed a bill to give $60 billion in aid to African countries to counter Chinese investment: 1,2,3 I'm not a fan of more foreign aid (despite no wall funding), but it's still good to counter China, so I will add one of the refs to the article, but not in the legislation section. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2018 (EDT)

The State Department said it will give $10 billion to develop Central America and Southern Mexico: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2018 (EST)

Failure: State Dept. still supporting anti-Israel report

I am not adding this, at least yet, because I'm not sure how significant it is, but the State Department still endorses an anti-Israel report that essentially blames the nation for terrorist attacks against it and claims that Palestinians only rarely incite violence.[30] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2017 (EDT)

Venezuela sanctions

The Trump Administration enacted sanctions on Venezuela's president and labeled him a dictator.[31][32][33][34][35] While I support the move, I don't see how it is significant enough to add here as an achievement. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is planning more sanctions against Venezuela: [36] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (EDT)

The additional sanctions have been imposed: [37][38] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Is our criteria to label as an "achievement" when Trump defines a policy and then carries it out? Or does that policy have to achieve the intended results? Is it a success or a failure when the Trump administration adopts a policy that is counter to what Trump promised during the campaign? --Unsigned comment by JDano

We already went through this. We are not going to create any silly bureaucratic "criteria" which would result in half of Trump's (significant, noteworthy, and very well-sourced) listed achievements being deleted. If an achievement advances conservative policies/ideals (generally, as defined in the conservative article), it can be included. Presumably, it must be well-sourced. There is no further requirement. If an action is clearly a dud, we can note this. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration added more sanctions on Venezuela: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Citgo Petroleum Corp., which is owned by the Venezuelen government, was exempted from the sanctions, however, even though it still will not be able to send its profits to the Venezuelen government: [46] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

More Venezuela sanctions: [47] It seems like these sanctions are being enacted a lot, but in smaller pieces at a time. Maybe they should be added, but the small portions at a time make it difficult. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2018 (EST)

More sanctions, this time against Venezuela's digital currencies: [48][49] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

More sanctions again, among other news: [50][51][52][53][54] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

I added these sanction from 2017 and 2018 to the article, including a few others such as the ones enacted today.[55][56] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Military option?

President Trump is not ruling out a military option in dealing with Venezuela.1,2,3,4 It is good to see the Trump Administration take strong foreign policy stances -- however, hopefully, this does not indicate any shift towards a neoconservative foreign policy. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2017 (EDT)

Trump Administration officials reportedly secretly met with some Venezuelan military officers to discuss overthrowing the latter country's government: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Other Venezuela news

It's good to note that despite the prisoner release yesterday, there are still five Americans held in Venezuela: [57] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

Interesting op-ed on it: [58] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration may possibly designate Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism: [59] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2018 (EST)

Defunding the Syrian rebels: confirmed?

President Trump appeared to confirm it: [60][61] If/when it is confirmed, I would appreciate it is someone would notify me. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2017 (EDT)

Killing ISIS

It might be that the Trump Administration killed more ISIS members in the past eight months than during the entire Obama Administration.[62][63] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

Not related to the above, and it's not solely an achievement by the Trump Administration, but this article on efforts against ISIS is interesting: [64] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

More on the capture of five senior ISIS leaders: [65] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

Arming the Kurds

The Trump Administration moved to arm the Kurds, but the outcome of this program is unclear, since Turkey wants it defunded, and has made statements saying the White House would end it, but it appears that the program is still ongoing. President Trump's stance also is unclear, at least based on my understanding of the sources I skimmed through: [66][67][68][69][70] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

UN reforms: attempt to stop Trump

According to Fox News, some UN leaders are now open to reforming the UN, but only to help protect the organization from the Trump Administration and any actions it might take against the UN.[71] Hopefully these attempts will not succeed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

If the UN adopts reforms that address US concerns or criticisms, then the UN, our nation, and the world are better off. It is better to fix problems without having to spend political capital. JDano (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Only if it addresses U.S. concerns. These reforms are clearly not intended to address U.S. concerns. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Trump proposing reforms

It is being reported that Trump will call for reforming the UN in a few weeks: [72] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

It is also being reported that Trump will promote his America First agenda in his UN speech, along with national sovereignty in general.[73][74] Hopefully, this will be the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

And more reports of reforming the UN,[75] even though John Bolton doesn't think much of it.[76] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

More UN developments

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is pledging that the U.S. will not pay more than 25% of the UN budget: [77] Hopefully, this pledge will come to fruition. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

The State Department just released a list of the top 10 countries that vote both most often and least often with the U.S.: [78][79] Interesting list. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. blocked (for a time) a pro-breastfeeding resolution in the UN: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86] The Left probably hates this move, but I appreciate the administration's challenging the global status-quo even in this area. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

Another article on the breastfeeding resolution: [87] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Haley's criticisms of the UN Human Rights Council: [88] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), of the UN, who is anti-Trump, has established offices in the U.S., which it apparently did through the Obama Administration without the approval of other countries: [89] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

This does not appear to be directly related to the Trump Administration's policies, but the UN issued a statement saying it is urgently short on cash: [90] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

North Korea sanctions?

Here is an interesting article discussing how the North Korea UN sanctions might not be so effective after all. However, I won't add this to the article because it is far too early to know whether the sanctions were ineffective after all. If good articles do come out, I will probably add them, at least, as a footnote. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

The U.S. softened some new proposed sanctions on North Korea, proposed in the UN, to gain the support of China and Russia.[91] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

These new sanctions were approved: [92][93][94][95][96] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

The Treasury Department sanctioned two high-ranking North Korean officials today.[97][98] While a good move, I probably won't add this because it doesn't seem significant enough by itself to include. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Interesting article on Voice of America's analysis on the Trump Administration's North Korea policy: [99] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2017 (EST)

According to Reuters, the U.S. is preparing to crack down on ships travelling to North Korea in the form of intercepting them: [100][101] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (EST)

The Associated Press and the Heritage Foundation are not impressed with the latest sanctions against North Korea and dispute the administration's assertion that they are the largest-ever: [102] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2018 (EST)

The U.S. is creating a multi-national coalition to track illegal feul shipments to North Korea: [103] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

North Korea travel ban

The Trump Administration will ban travel to North Korea. It is probably most appropriate to add it to this article (as opposed to the immigration article), and I will do so once it goes into effect.[104][105][106][107][108] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2017 (EDT)

The ban will go into effect on September 1.[109][110] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

Weapons to U.S. allies

The U.S. probably will start selling more weapons to its allies around North Korea. something Trump recently tweeted about: [111] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

That sounds like a good plan. If he goes through with it, that might be worth adding. --David B ^(TALK) 11:23, 26 February 2018 (EST)

Thaw in relations?

Trump agreed to hold a meeting with N.K.'s leader Kim Jong-un in May: [112][113][114][115] This will be interesting, and we'll see what comes out of it. Trump's policies likely played a big role in these developments: [116][117] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Another interesting article on this meeting: [118] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2018 (EST)

I love how the left would have called him unreasonable if he was not doing this, but are now claiming that this is a risky step because it "legitimizes" N.K. Rush Limbaugh made a great point today about how the news media was actually congratulating Trump for the first hour or so, before they all "got the memo" and started saying this was terrible. --David B ^(TALK) 01:47, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Now, the NK media is claiming the country will stop nuclear tests and close a testing site: [119][120][121][122][123] Time will tell what will ultimately come out of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Kim Jong-un became the first North Korean leader to step into South Korea. This seems like big news, and as some of the sources show, Trump definitely deserves some credit for this: [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] This might be something to add, especially if we get an official treaty or agreement. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

There were some reports that North Korea had freed some American prisoners, but these reports appear to remain unconfirmed: [132][133][134] If they are confirmed, we should definitely add this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

More on the prisoners, who we now know have been freed: [135][136][137] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

Trump cancelled the meeting because of the North Koreans' behavior in the past few days, and he made clear that the U.S. military is ready in case it is needed: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Contrary to an edit that I reverted, the meeting being cancelled was not a Trump Administration failure, since the Trump Administration is persuing a good peace agreement that won't repeat past administrations' failures -- North Korea's behavior in the last few days showed that such a meeting would not help advance that goal (also, a *real* peace agreement is not dependent on some meeting that's on North Korea's terms). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration stopped new sanctions against NK while the talks for a potential summit are still happening: [138][139] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2018 (EDT)

Trump instructed Mike Pompeo to cancel his trip to NK because of insufficient progress in achieving denuclearization: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

As an aside, two bodies that NK returned have already been identified: [140] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Summit

This is big news, and I will most likely add this to the article, though I want to wait a little bit before doing so particularly because everything's moving so fast. Trump and Kim meeting: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Sources on the agreement signed: 123456,7,891011,12 Sources on the possible ending of military drills and the Pentagon's reaction: 1,2,3,4,5 Other interesting sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Reaction from Japan and South Korea: 1,2,3 Potential images to upload: 1,2,3,4 This is a lot of info, but I will probably add this soon, and I won't have to do internet searches for sources again with this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

Here's an interesting take on the summit and the agreement signed: [141] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

Another decent article: [142] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, North Korea has begun to return the remains of American soldiers: [143] This is also something to look into. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

A good source on the ending of military drills: [144] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration chose to end some more military exercises: [145][146] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

North Korea reportedly just suspended it annual U.S. rally: [147][148] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

However, they're still making improvements to their nuclear facilities: [149] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2018 (EDT)

Their nuclear program is also going forward: [150][151][152] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

However, it appears that North Korea has begun dismantling its rocket launch site: [153] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. will resume military exercises in Korea: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2018 (EDT)

This article states that Mattis's statement on military exercises actually was confusing: [154] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

Mattis tried to clarify: [155] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

Trump's own statements on this: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

We should keep an eye on North Korea's returning the remains of dead American soldiers: 1,2,3,4,5,6 I will add this along with the other info when I add everything about the summit to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump is reportedly frustrated at the slow progress on North Korea: [156] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Things seem to be getting better again: [157] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2018 (EDT)

North Korea now threatened to stall denuclearization: [158] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on the stalled denuclearization talks: [159] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Good news?[160] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

North Korea might be still hiding missile operating bases: [161] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2018 (EST)

North Korea is using shipping to get around U.S. sanctions: [162] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Cuba

Some Cuban diplomats were kicked out of the U.S.[163] Interesting story. I'm not sure if there is any connection to Trump's Cuba policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Interesting article on Trump's June 2017 executive order on Cuba: [164] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2017 (EST)

The UN will vote on the U.S.'s embargo on Cuba, so in response, the U.S. will propose several amendments calling out Cuba's human rights abuses: [165] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration might allow stolen property lawsuits against Cuba: [166] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2018 (EDT)

Trump admin. failure? Definite stalling

The Trump Administration has still not made official the partial rollback of Obama's Cuba "thaw." It appears that the reason for this is that the Office of Foreign Assets Control does not have many workers and has a lot of other work.[167] Hopefully, this rollback will become official soon (or at all). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Russia non-immigrant visa suspension

In response to Russia's cutting of U.S. embassy staff, the U.S. announced it would stop non-immigrant visas for a week.[168][169][170][171] This seems like a good move, but I don't see how it is significant enough to add. Also, the suspension has not gone into effect yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

More actions against Russia

The U.S. government is forcing Russia to dramatically reduce its diplomatic presence in the U.S.1,2,3,4 It may be a good thing that the U.S. is tough on Russia, but considering that liberals can be very tough on people they disagree with politically, this may not necessarily be an achievement (although I am still inclined to favor it). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (EDT)

I removed this info because it doesn't seem like a substantive achievement. For one, this list was already required by a law Trump signed in 2017 (which I added to the article), and he took less action against Russia than was expected of him (he didn't institute sanctions against Russia yet). Here are other sources on this: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2018 (EST)

Here's a potential achievement: an alleged Russian hacker who was in the Czech Republic has been extradited to the U.S. despite the fact that Russia tried hard to get him extradited to their own country: 1,2,3,4,5 This seems like good news for the U.S., but it might be too insignificant to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

Some more U.S. sanctions, though these appear to be the direct result of a law enacted last year, so probably not significant enough to add: [172] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Putin meeting

Trump's meeting with Putin today might be something to add, since he went against the establishment in trying to get closer ties with Russia, though like the North Korea meeting, we'll see what comes out of all this: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

More sources: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Even more: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Some more commentary from Thomas Massie: [173] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump is (fortunately) continuing to appear to challenge the "intelligence community", though the White House denied this: [174] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Now he's saying he holds Putin personally respinsible for meddling, since he is Russia's leader: [175][176] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump said he has no confidence in the intelligence community that was run by Obama's appointees (Clapper, Brennan, etc.): [177] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Some more sources related to this: [178][179][180] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

INF treaty

The Trump Administration might leave the INF treaty: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 I have not added this yet because it appears this move isn't official yet, and no actual actions have been made on it so far. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

More on this: 1,2,3,4 The U.S. apparently hasn't formally filed a notice of withdrawal, but when it is filed, I will add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

Somewhat interesting article on this: [181] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Mattis is trying to reassure the European countries, which oppose the U.S. leaving the treaty, despite its problems: [182] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Pompeo gave Russia 60 days to comply, or else the U.S. would leave the treaty: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2018 (EST)

Some updates on this: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Interesting article about Trump's foreign policy

Voice of America did an article on what it thinks Trump's foreign policy principles are: [183] I'm probably not going to add it, and what this article says might be debatable, but it is still interesting. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2017 (EDT)

VoA made another article, calling Trump's foreign policy "conventional", which probably is true in some regards, though I won't add it: [184] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2018 (EST)

I found an interesting USA Today article about Trump's foreign policy during his first year: [185] It's interesting to read, but I won't add it to the article because it's quite biased against Trump, as it portrays many of his actions as harmful and quotes several anti-Trump foreign policy people. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, UNESCO was plagued by more than simply anti-Israel bias -- is also supported abortion and homosexuality: [186] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2018 (EST)

This article, on the benefits of Trump's meeting with Nigeria's leader, is interesting: [187] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

The writer of this article is clearly opposed to the Trump Administration's policies (and it appears to be an op-ed), but I agree with his point that the U.S. has turned from a "stabilizer" to a "disrupter" in foreign affairs, and that's a good thing in the current climate: [188] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

This is another interesting article stating how America First is now reality, and I'm tempted to add it, but since the article is entirely dependent on comments made by CFR president Richard Haass (rather than independent reporting), it probably shouldn't be added: [189] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article discussing relations between Egypt and the U.S. under Trump: [190] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

This article is from CNN and it's clearly biased against Trump, but it's still somewhat interesting to read: [191] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article discussing how instituting too many sanctions on other countries may make the type of measure less effective: [192] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

This article claims that the Trump Administration's foreign policy is pro-Christian. It's biased (Politico), but still interesting to read: [193] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2018 (EDT)

Countering China

It appears that the U.S. Navy will now have regular patrols in the South China Sea.[194][195][196][197] This appears to be something which is still scheduled to happen, rather than already has happened (so I'm reluctant to add it), but it is good that the U.S. is taking steps to counter China. It is a bigger long-term threat than Russia. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is also reviewing its policy toward China in an attempt to form a unified and organized policy. However, it's still too early to tell which direction the review will support going.[198][199] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2017 (EDT)

Some interesting articles on U.S. Navy ships and port calls in Taiwan: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

A U.S. warship sailed inside waters claimed by China surrounding a disputed island: [200][201][202] Probably not significant enough to add to the article, but a good sign of U.S. policy toward China. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

A South Korean warship also sailed near a Chinese-claimed island: [203] Meanwhile, China isn't letting U.S. Navy ships to visit Hong Kong: [204] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. is considering another ship passage through the Taiwan strait: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. apparently made public for the first time its demand for China to remove missiles from the South China Sea: [205] This is good, but I've only found one source on this so far, and it doesn't make a big deal about the "first time" part. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (EST)

The Philippines is moving back toward a pro-U.S. foreign policy, a big reason for that being to reduce its dependence on China: [206] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2017 (EDT)

Interesting article about a speech made by Mike Pompeo today on U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (EDT)

More articles on a tough foreign policy toward China, including Mike Pence's strong speech today (maybe we should add it, but I'm not sure): 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2018 (EDT)

A bipartisian commission told Congress that the U.S. should create a fund to counter China's Belt and Road initiative: [207] Maybe it would be effective, but we should be more focused on reducing foreign aid rather than finding ways to further increase it. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2018 (EST)

There has been some discussion on China's help (or lack thereof) in confronting North Korea. China's government is stating that they are cutting off oil and steel imports to the country: [208] Hopefully, it is being honest in this announcement. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2018 (EST)

The State Department reportedly approved a marketing license that allows American companies to sell technology to Taiwan that would allow the country to build its own submarines: [209] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

This is a good article showing why China is probably the greatest threat the U.S. faces: [210] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article discussing China's threat to U.S. financial dominance (though this article also is biased, defending a globalist foreign policy philosophy): [211] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

U.S. airlines are probably still going to change how they refer to Taiwan in order to please the PRoC government, despite the Trump Administration's strong words against the policy: [212][213][214][215] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

Another article showing how left-wing U.S. airlines are in general: [216] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Now, China says it's not enough: [217] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

Also, China is violating international sanctions on North Korea by opening a travel agency for it in Taiwan: [218] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. may enact sanctions on China for its persecution of Muslims: [219][220] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Setback to tough-on-China policy?

Admiral Scott Swift, who is very anti-China, was dropped from consideration to command Pacific Command, mainly due to his views on China (the Pentagon is still more liberal and supports working with China): [221] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2017 (EDT)

This is not necessarily a setback, but Mattis is trying to keep military relations between the two nations intact: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Comprehensive Economic Dialogue

David Malpass, a high-ranking Treasury Department official, stated that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue between the U.S. and China would end and be replaced with private/informal discussions,[222] but the Treasury Department reversed itself and retracted that statement: 1,2,3 Hopefully, the talks will end soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Unrelated to the above organization, the APEC summit failed, as the U.S. and China could not reach an agreement on how to word the joint statement for the first time since the summit began: 1,2,3,4,5,6 This seems to be good, as the U.S. is standing up for its interests, though I don't see where it could be added to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Appointments

The Trump Administration is nominating Randall Schriver, a China hawk, to an important Defense Department position dealing with issues related to China, and the Senate confirmed Daniel Krintenbrink, someone who spoke out against China during his confirmation hearing, as the ambassador to Vietnam.[223] Hopefully, this shows that the Trump Administration will be harsher toward China. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

I seriously considered adding Schriver to the article as a personal achievement due to his stance on China, but I didn't find many articles on him, and the more I read about him, he doesn't stick out as an exceptional appointee, at least to the point where we should single him out (though he's clearly still a very good appointee). Thus, I don't think I'll add him to the article. Regardless, here are decent articles related to him that I did find: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Andy Harris has been formally nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, having been moved from Australia, and he seems like someone who can help take a tough stance against China: [224] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2018 (EDT)

This isn't an actual appointment, but Michael Pillsbury, who supports a tougher China policy, is apparently extremely influential in the administration's China policies -- in some ways, this is a personnel matter: [225] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2018 (EST)

Brexit and the EU

Woody Johnson, Trump's ambassador to the UK, is promising U.S. support for Britain in its Brexit talks: 1,2,3,4 Hopefully, the Trump Administration will adopt a Euroskeptic approach to the EU, or at least one that's friendly to the Euroskeptics. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson voiced the same support: [226] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Same for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: [227] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Ross is warning that EU regulations could hurt trade between the U.S. and UK: [228] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

Ambassador Johnson is urging the British to be brave/bold in the negotiations leaving the EU, rather than nervous to leave: [229] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump seems to have a good relationship with Boris Johnson, a good sign considering what's going on right now in the UK with Brexit: [230] Also, a good statement from the U.S. Ambassador to the UK: [231] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump seems skeptical of May's "soft Brexit" position: [232][233] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump has some very strong criticisms of May's handling of Brexit: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1112,13,14,15,16 --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

According to May, Trump told her to go on the offensive and sue to the EU over Brexit: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump will still seek a trade agreement between the U.S. and UK: [234] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump does not think highly of the Brexit deal between the UK and the EU: [235] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2018 (EST)

The U.S. ambassador's comments on this: [236] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2018 (EST)

The Treasury Department and the USTR reached a bilateral insurance agreement with the UK related to Brexit: [237] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Despite the many protests in London, many British people actually like Trump and support him visiting: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Donald Trump is 100% right to deem the European Union a foe on par with China and Russia. Not just because of trade, but because of geopolitics. In response to global backlash against globalism, Brussels has been pushing for further integration of European economies and militaries, in what is a clear attempt to create a United States of Europe before it's too late. A USoE could become a serious national security threat to the United States. As a standard-bearer of modern leftism and with a population of nearly 450 million and a GDP of about $18.3 trillion, a USoE would be more than powerful enough to project political, economic, and perhaps even military might into the Western Hemisphere -- our own backyard -- and undermine our ability to keep our immediate neighbors friendly to our national interests. It would therefore be a fundamental national interest for the United States to prevent the rise of a USoE, and other potential European or Asian hegemons such as Red China.[238] --Geopolitician (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Other UK matters

Sam Brownback, the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, reportedly pressured Britain to free Tommy Robinson -- a very good thing, if true: [239][240] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Lobbying by Breitbart reportedly was a reason for this: [241] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

Israel military base

The U.S. opened its first permanent military base in Israel: [242] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Other Israel stuff

UN Ambassador Haley stated that the UN is taking less of an anti-Israel stance since the Trump Administration took office, and if true, it's good news: [243] Of course, this is just Haley's claim, so I am not confident to add it to the article, at least yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, UNESCO and other parts of the U.N. have been really slandering Israel--I don't think a brief lull can count as an achievement, unless it was caused by Trump outright saying that Israel owns its land, and will be protected by the U.S. from anyone trying to say or do anything to the contrary. Still, I hope it's true. --David B ^(TALK) 13:04, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Here's what Netanyahu thinks of Haley: [244] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2018 (EDT)

These articles might be useful in the future, if we choose to discuss the potential (and desirable) embassy move to Jerusalem.[245][246] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Some more interesting articles on Niki Haley and Israel: [247][248] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

The Israeli government just posted signs directing people to the new Jerusalem embassy location: [249][250][251] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Jerusalem will also reportedly name a square near the new U.S. embassy after Trump: [252][253] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on what should be done with the old Tel Aviv embassy and why: [254] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

The embassy just moved its Twitter location to Jerusalem: [255] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

Trump is being honored in other ways as well: [256][257] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

More interesting articles on the move: [258][259][260] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

This is an interesting article on Trump and Israel, though I don't think it's not relevant/significant enough to add to the article: [261] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article discussing a "reset" in the U.S. positions regarding Israel/Palestine: [262] I probably won't add it, since most of the article is based on future events (those that haven't been officially announced). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. isn't happy at Israel allowing a Chinese government-connected company control a major Israeli port: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2018 (EST)

These articles show that in addition to good relations with Trump, Israel is developing friendlier relations with many of the Sunni Gulf states, since they share the same enemy: [263][264] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration may recognize Israel's control of the Golan Heights soon: [265][266] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel's use of force in gaza due to the Anti-Israel riots there: [267] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. is expected to release a document in early September that will push back against the Palestinian "right of return" myth: [268] Hopefully, this will happen as expected. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article related to this topic and the recent defunding of UNRWA: [269] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. appearently has further plans for UNRWA: [270] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Extra sources on the U.S.'s closing of the PLO mission: [271][272] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

The UN is becoming more friendly toward the Palestinians as the Trump Administration is getting tougher: [273] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. is trying to get the UN to vote to condemn Hamas: [274] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2018 (EST)

The UN failed to condemn it: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2018 (EST)

This article doesn't have much at all about Trump's policies, but it does well at noting that the U.S. is not an anti-Semitic country and briefly mentions that Trump is pro-Israel: [275] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

Potential failure: State Department and Jerusalem

The State Department is refusing to implement the practical effects of the U.S. recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, such as recognizing that fact in passports and on the Jerusalem consulate address: [276][277][278] Hopefully, that will change, but if not, it is a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Countering Iran

The Trump Administration will crack down more harshly on Hezbollah: [279] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2017 (EDT)

More sources for Trump's support for Iranian anti-government protestors: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (EST)

Hopefully, this will actually be the last time President Trump waives the Iran deal: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2018 (EST)

The Trump Administration is making contingency plans in case it chooses to leave the Iran Deal: 1,2 Trump's comments on the deal indicate, at least to some observers, that he is willing to leave, which is good if true: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

I haven't used these articles for the entry in the article, but they are still interesting to read: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

More interesting articles on the Iran deal that I haven't added: 1,2,3 I removed this ref about oil prices in reaction to the Iran deal withdrawal, since I read that oil prices rose this morning: [280] Prices go up and down, so if there isn't a clear reaction, better to just leave it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

It's good to see that Mattis is publically supporting the decision, despite his apparent previous opposition to leaving: [281] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

More on Iran: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

According to the State Department, the U.S. will take a tough position on granting wavers to companies with regards to the Iran sanctions: [282] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

Though the White House said it wanted "zero tolerance" for oil exports,[283][284] it appears to be softening its position.[285][286] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

Some sources on companies ending their business with Iran because of the reimposed U.S. sanctions: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

More on the reimposing of sanctions: [287] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on the potential reinstatement of financial messaging services sanctions: [288] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration might impose sanctions on all countries that still buy Iranian oil, including China: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

The EU is ending its Iral oil sales, but China is not: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (EDT)

More on oil sales: [289] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

India will cut oil sales from Iran: [290] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration will make it harder for countries to get waivers for Iranian oil: [291] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2018 (EDT)

China has finally cut Iran oil sales: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (EDT)

Some European firms are ignoring U.S. sanctions: [292] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2018 (EST)

Iran is apparently increasing its black market oil export operation: [293] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (EST)

Regardless, companies are already leaving Iran: [294] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Trump harshly criticized Iran in his Nowruz message: [295][296] I'm not sure if this should be added (it's only words, not action), but it indicates that the administration is taking a tough line against Iran. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. and Israel are apparently teaming up to counter Iran: [297] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. is launching a campaign the reduce support for Iran's leaders in the country: [298] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump's tweet yesterday night on Iran is interesting: 1,2,3,4,5,6 This may be something to add, since it's a statement Obama would never have made, but since it's just a statement, it might be a good idea to wait and see what happens with all this. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is reportedly trying to set up an "Arab NATO" to contain Iran's military expansion: [299] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

Reactions to the news of possibly setting up an "Arab NATO": [300] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2018 (EDT)

More on this "Arab NATO": 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Iran is apparently illegally exporting rockets, according to the State Department: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2018 (EST)

More sources on Iran's apparent violation of a UN chemical weapons treaty that I didn't add to the article: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (EST)

I made some comments above on the matter of the effect of sanctions on Iran's oil exports -- but this likely development of Iran being hurt could help Libya, something the U.S. might be working behind-the-scenes about: [301] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Some extra sources on reactions to the Trump Administration's reimposition of sanctions on Iran today: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

Some more news, including protests in Iran, good news on the sanctions' effects, and U.S. officials stating that the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal is helping wind down the war in Yemen: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. says it won't grant many exemptions to the Iran sanctions: [302] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2018 (EDT)

Several airlines won't fly to Iran: [303] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

The EU is trying to reach a deal with Iran to help it evade U.S. sanctions: [304] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Iranian rial

The Iranian rial, the country's currency, hit a record low because of the Trump Administration's policies (not directly, but because of market forces reacting to them): [305][306][307] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2018 (EDT)

The rial has hit another record low: [308] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2018 (EDT)

Iranian agression

Iran test-fired three ballistic missiles, the first time it has fired them in over a year: [309] The fact that there was such a long wait may be worth noting. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Iran just said it had taken full control of the Strait of Hormuz: [310][311] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

Possible failures on Iran

The Trump Administration is reportedly going to allow Iran to produce and test missiles that could hit Israel per the Iran nuclear deal renegotiations: 1,2 Hopefully, Trump will reject the deal. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Since Trump chose to leave the Iran deal, he appears to have presumably abandoned this part too, meaning it's not a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Not necessarily a failure (in fact, it could be the opposite), but it's interesting to note that U.S. military presence in the region does not appear to match with the statements the U.S. has made against Iran: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. might allow Iran to continue to remain in the international banking system, which would undermine its actions against the latter's government: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration might not mandate zero oil exports from Iran: [312] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2018 (EDT)

Eight countries reportedly will get waivers: [313] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (EDT)

Not a failure (at least yet), but speculation on whether Trump will go along with neocons in demanding regime change in Iran: [314] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Closing the "Taliban Embassy"

The Trump Administration may put pressure on its Middle Eastern allies to close the Taliban's "political office" in Qatar.[315] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Closing the Palestinian D.C. office

The Trump Administration originally wanted to close the Palestinian representative office in Washington D.C. due to a law ordering this if the Palestinians try to get the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israelis,[316] but it apparently backtracked on this.[317][318][319][320] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Qatar and terrorism: potential achievement

The Trump Administration and Qatar have agreed to have Qatar strengthen its efforts against terrorism.[321][322] While agreements like these can be hard to determine how strongly enforced they will be, this might be worth adding as an achievement. This article is also of note: [323] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

U.S. sovereignty

The recently confirmed nominee to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration voiced support and confidence in the new international organization that controls internet domains. This used to be something controlled exclusively by the U.S., but the Obama Administration handed it over.[324] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2017 (EST)

The nominee, David Redl, apparently made a deal with Ted Cruz to at least look into regaining U.S. sovereignty over internet domains: [325][326] Hopefully, this deal was serious/factual, and hopefully it is actually possible to regain U.S. control over internet domains (and if so, hopefully, there's a will to do it). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2018 (EST)

This article gives an interesting take on Trump's decision not to attend the Summit of the Americas, since it argues the organization is another leftist/globalist international organization: [327] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

The leaders at the summit signed another one of those statements pledging adherence to globalist principles: [328] This may not be significant enough to add to this article (since only Pence was present and most international organizations make statements like this), but this article is interesting and might have useful info for other articles in this series or for CP in general. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

This report on energy integration between the U.S., Canada, and mexico is concerning: [329] Hopefully, the Trump Administration won't continue going along with this. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

I am looking forward to Trump's UN speech -- he is supposed to emphasize his support for protecting U.S. sovereignty: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2018 (EDT)

This article in particular might be useful for later: [330] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

More on the speech/day that I probably won't add: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

The International Court of Justice ordered the U.S. to resume humanitarian shipments to Iran -- hopefully, the U.S. won't comply: [331] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. hasn't signed a cyber principles agreement pushed by the French, at least yet: [332] If doesn't seem like a big deal if it does sign it, but it still seems like a good thing (symbolically, at least) that it hasn't. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Trump and globalists

Not only did Trump reserve his first state dinner for Macron, but he allowed Macron to address Congress and give an ultra-globalist speech: 1,2,3,4,5,6 Hopefully, Trump won't adopt Macron's policies, as it would be a 100% reversal from his campaign promises. Regardless, this article on the current U.S.-French relationship is interesting: [333][334] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

This is interesting to watch: [335] Poland's request was in the news recently, but what many media outlets appear to have missed is that its request would bypass NATO and the EU. If the Trump Administration accepts, I hope the deal will be bilateral. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

On the other hand, building a base there would bring us into even more foreign entanglements: [336] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

Some good news: the Trump Administration is finally taking a more friendly stance toward Hungary, with the nation's government having recently held meetings with high-ranking Trump Administration officials, including Pompeo (note that some of the following sources are left-wing and strongly biased against this, despite being interesting to read): [337][338][339][340][341] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

While the following sources are left-wing and oppose Orban's government, it does appear that the U.S. State Department had a less friendly perspective on the meeting: [342][343][344] Also, this is a good article on this general topic: [345] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2018 (EDT)

More good news: the State Department is criticizing some laws in Canada which restrict religious liberty (and criticisms like that don't happen often).[346] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

Finally! Trump spoke with Viktor Orban yesterday, probably the first time the two spoke, at least since the former was elected president: [347][348][349] Hopefully, they will meet one-on-one soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump suggested to Macron that he leave the EU: [350][351] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, UK officials are trying to prevent Trump from meeting Nigel Farage during his upcoming trip to Britain: [352][353] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Some portions of the State Department is openly opposing Trump's tweet on South Africa: [354] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

The South African government withdrew the bill, though it appears it is still pursuing the policy and constitutional change: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

Good -- Trump reportedly speaks to Farage quite often: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Trump's ambassador to the EU criticized the organization -- good statements from a person who seems very establishment-minded: [355] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Apparently, Israel is a big reason why U.S.-Hungary relations have begun to warm this year: [356] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

More articles on the warming U.S.-Hungary relationship: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. ambassador to Italy defended the country's populist government, correctly noting it's what the Italian people wanted: [357] Probably not significant enough to add to the article, but still good to note here. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2018 (EDT)

Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited Hungary -- another good sign: [358] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (EST)

John Bolton will visit Bolsonaro soon: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (EST)

In November 2018, Bolsonaro was invited to the White House: [359] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (EST)

Interesting article on why the U.S. should leave the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is similar to the Ex-Im Bank: [360] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump's stances are apparently causing Europeans to be less supportive of his nominee to lead the Financial Stability Board (an international organization): [361] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

In bad news (and a possible failure), the U.S. Treasury Department is urging Italy to remain in the Euro currency: [362] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

However, Trump did (reportedly) say that the EU is even worse than China (though the context appears to have been on trade): [363][364] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Interesting commentary by Pat Buchanan on Trump's reshaping of the world order: [365] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

Nikki Haley has criticized a highly-politicized UN "report" discussing poverty in the U.S. and their "solutions" to fix it (higher taxes and universal healthcare are among the "solutions"): [366] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2018 (EDT)

Here's an interesting op-ed on the UN's Human Rights Commission and the attitudes toward it of various countries: [367] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is still claiming there's no evidence that American POWs were held in the USSR, despite the strong evidence that does exist: [368] Hopefully, Trump will change this. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (EDT)

Good news -- the Trump Administration is open to adjusting the border between Serbia and Kosovo, even though other European countries are irrationally opposed to the thought of actually changing national boundaries (as if the post-WWI boundaries actually made sense): [369][370] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (EDT)

Hopefully, the Khashoggi case won't cause the Trump Administration to shift in a more neocon foreign policy direction: [371] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Another good article on this issue: [372] Hopefully, the Trump Administration will continue to support Saudi Arabia, our strongest ally (or second, to Israel) against Iran. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2018 (EDT)

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't care. Trump is 100% wrong on this one. The ongoing crisis between Saudi Arabia and Turkey is not a matter of globalists vs. nationalists. It's a matter of a coalition of pro-Saudi globalists and pro-Saudi nationalists vs. a coalition pro-Turkish globalists and pro-Turkish nationalists. By taking any side in this conflict, Trump is siding with globalists and neocons, by default. If Trump wants to avoid getting in bed with globalists and neocons, he needs to cut his losses, stop selling weapons to either side, let the Saudis and Turks kill each other, leave the Middle East (except Israel and perhaps Egypt) alone, and focus more on domestic issues. Meanwhile, if the winning side in this conflict ends up becoming a super-caliphate capable of sponsoring Islamist uprisings around the world, we can always employ a policy of containment. And if that super-caliphate dares to actually sponsor Islamist uprisings on or otherwise attack the soil of either the US or its allies, we can always bomb them back to the stone age (and that's us being nice, considering we technically have a casus belli to bomb both countries right now for their roles in sponsoring Islamist terrorist attacks on American soil). --Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2018 (EST)

I would add it as an achievement if Trump drastically reduces/ends foreign aid on both sides -- that would be a good move for the U.S. Problem is, if Trump sides with the Europeans and American foreign policy establishment, he would still be taking a globalist/neocon position. The globalists in the U.S. and Europe don't want to reduce U.S. foreign aid and actually want to increase it. They want to reduce aid in this specific case because of human rights concerns (an important aspect of neoconservatism), and only because it's in the news a lot right now. They would gladly restore all aid and get even more involved if those "concerns" are satisfied. Thus, Trump should significantly reduce aid, but he shouldn't do it the globalist/neocon way when doing so. It's better to take the realist path right now rather than the European globalist idealist route. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (EST)

If significantly reducing aid is the realist route, then I'm afraid that Trump has rejected both the realist route and the European globalist idealist route (which would be isolating the Saudis but coddling the Turks). Instead, he has chosen a third route where the status quo remains. This in my opinion was a mistake, because I don't trust the Saudis to continue what they have been doing without provoking a major war in the Middle East (assuming the Turks or the Iranians don't beat them to it first). --Geopolitician (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (EST)

When I said "realist," I meant the status-quo, though on further thought, it might not be the best term. Since Congress doesn't want to reduce foreign aid (in fact, it actually wants to increase it), the way I see it, it's better to not fully cave to the neocon view -- that U.S. foreign policy should be motivated by human rights concerns and promoting democracy rather than what's in the interests of the U.S. and its citizens -- and thus not end aid to Saudi Arabia while it is increased overall. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2018 (EST)

At this point, it's no longer in America's national interests to support Saudi Arabia at all. For the past 50 years, the Saudis have been conducting an increasingly reckless foreign policy. Since the 1970s, it has been promoting the spread of Wahhabism throughout the world through state-sponsored educational institutions and through support of Mujahideen movements in Afghanistan and in Syria. This promotion campaign directly led to the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS, and has played a major role in the ongoing destabilization of the Middle East. It has also led to Saudi Arabia seriously damaging its own economy. With oil prices being only 35% of what they were in June 2008 (the all-time high) when adjusted for inflation[373][374], the country is now dangerously close to bankruptcy[375][376][377][378][379]. The Saudis know full well that the days of when they could safely say they were the regional leader of the Middle East (and perhaps the Sunni world in general) are now numbered. Saudi Arabia is in decline, while Turkey and Iran are on the rise (sanctions from the US notwithstanding). And so, like many declining powers before it, Saudi Arabia is responding to these changes by acting even more irresponsibly than usual. Events like the Khashoggi killing and the alleged kidnapping and forced resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister last year seem to be little more than Saudi attempts to provoke escalations of the ongoing geopolitical conflict, perhaps made in hopes of starting a war where the US would help the Saudis (1) defeat Turkey and/or Iran; and (2) cement Saudi Arabia's status as the super-caliphate that it's always wanted to be. As long as the House of Saud remains in power, I cannot see how, under any circumstances, a victorious and powerful Saudi Arabia -- which would be inherently capable of sponsoring an even greater campaign to spread Wahhabism than the one that is currently ongoing -- would be in our national interests. --Geopolitician (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2018 (EST)

Nice -- Trump is strongly criticizing Macron for his comments on a European army and nationalism: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2018 (EST)

This is a somewhat interesting interview discussing Trump's threat to globalism -- interesting, but since it's only summarizing an interview with someone, I don't think it should be added to the article: [380] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Another interesting op-ed, though I also don't think it can be added to the article: [381] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Remember all the times I was warning about the possibility of a EU army being created to integrate the EU into a United States of Europe to counter the United States? Well, looks like President Trump has finally awoken to that threat. If I were Macron and Merkel, I would be very scared right now. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Great statements by Trump, stating that he does not want the U.S. to be taken advantage by its allies: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Bad appointments

Despite conservatives asking Trump not to appoint Joseph MacManus, who served with Hillary Clinton and has a history of advancing liberal causes,[382][383][384] the Trump Administration nominated him anyway to be the ambassador to Colombia.[385] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Conservative Senators will try to block MacManus's nomination: [386][387] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2017 (EST)

Fortnately, they're still blocking MacManus: [388] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2018 (EDT)

Also, Trump's ambassador to India, who was confirmed earlier this year, Kenneth Juster, is probably the epitome of a deep state party-of-Devos globalist, who is not only a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but also of the Trilateral Commission.[389] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2017 (EST)

This article lists some bad Trump Administration appointments in the State Department. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Mike Pompeo is promoting a large number of career diplomats -- not necessarily a bad thing, but hopefully, he's not sacrificing his agency's promotion of the Trump agenda in doing so: [390] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Pompeo nominated a prominent Never-Trumper from the WSJ who harshly criticized Trump's foreign policy even well into 2018 as a policy advisor: [391] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Should we add Nikki Haley to the list of bad appointments? Personally, I believe Haley should've been fired back in April for her now-infamous "we will slap Russia around" remarks. [392] Also, I'm disturbed but not surprised by allegations that Haley may in fact be the anonymous member of the administration who penned the anti-Trump "resistance" article for the New York Times back in September. [393][394] --Geopolitician (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (EST)

I don't think she's at that point. It's good she's gone, but she was helpful in advancing certain parts of the Trump agenda (unhelpful in others, but still), particularly its attitude toward Israel, and possibly leaving the UNHRC. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Yes, she did bring some good things to the table. But can't the same thing be said about all the other bad appointments Trump has made? I'm sure they all did at least one good thing, but in the end the bad certainly outweighed the good. In Haley's case, would you consider the good to be outweighing the bad? --Geopolitician (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (EST)

I think the good is weighty enough that we don't have to mention her appointment as a failure. Also, on several issues where she did disagree with Trump, like the UN global migration compact, she lost and went along with the decision, and on issues like Russia, she was far from the only one opposing Trump. I would rather stay away from listing appointments as failures unless they were very damaging to the administration's agenda -- and the evidence strongly suggests she was not. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2018 (EST)

Good personnel developments

Tom Shannon, a career diplomat and the State Department's #3 official, will be retiring -- one less establishment official at State: [395][396][397][398] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2018 (EST)

Unfortunately, Adam Lerrick, a conservative Treasury Department nominee, was withdrawn, though he may become a senior advisor in the department: [399][400][401] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

Trump just appointed Tomás Regalado, a strong opponent of Cuba, to run the U.S. government media that counter's Cuba's state media: [402] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2018 (EDT)

Mari Stull, in the State Department for International Organization Affairs, appears to be a good appointee, though she is being targeted by the deep state for her support for Trump: [403] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

Susan Thornton, an establishent State Department official, will retire rather than proceed with her nomination in the Senate: [404][405] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump appointed Kiron Skinner to be the State Department's director of policy planning: [406] She seems conservative and like a positive appointment, but I personally think the BB article is over-hyping the appointment. Praise from the Heritage Foundation, for a lady who worked for George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, is not what we should be searching for in a nominee. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on the senior officials at the State Department and other agencies: [407] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

Interesting article on Nikki Haley's resignation, what might come next, and a little bit on what she did: [408] Article focuses too much on future speculation to add to the article, I think, but it's still interesting to read. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2018 (EDT)

Another interesting article that mentions some people in the Trump Administration known for holding a tough stance on Cuba: [409] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

NATO spending

About half of all NATO members are expected to meet the organization's spending goals by 2024, which the Trump Administration is advocating for: [410] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2018 (EST)

More articles on Europe's NATO spending: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Another article: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

More criticisms by Trump on NATO spending of other countries: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

More of Trump's recent criticisms of the NATO (along with the EU): 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump may help smaller NATO countries buy U.S. weapons to expand their militaries: [411] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

More NATO sources: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

More with NATO

An interesting article about NATO and Trump: [412] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

This article about U.S. contributions to NATO is biased against Trump (makes sense, considering it's written by a CFR person), but it's still interesting to read: [413] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. Senate voted to support NATO, with only two very conservative Senators (Lee and Paul) voting against: [414] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Some sources on Trump an NATO, along with Germany's dependence on Russian oil, that I haven't added to the article: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

An interesting article on Russo-German cultural and economic interdependence, which dates back to before the First World War.[415] --Geopolitician (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Contrary to the MSM narrative, DoD Secretary Mattis described the recent summit as very productive: [416] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Three friendly but tough reminders about why and how NATO has outlived its overall usefulness:[417][418][419]--Geopolitician (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

Military interventionism

The U.S. Senate rejected a proposal to force the U.S. military to withdraw from Yemen (and Congress didn't even authorize military intervention in the first place): 1,2,3,4,5 Hopefully, the Trump Administration will withdraw from some of these foreign conflicts. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Regardless of what one thought of the Syria strike yesterday, this comment from the White House today sounded like something a moralist neocon would say. Hopefully, the Trump Administration isn't going that route. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2018 (EDT)

Hopefully, Emmanuel Macron's statements are untrue: 1,2 It's unfortunate that the world leader that Trump arguably has the best relationship with is a globalist leftist. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (EDT)

Macron appeared to "walk back" those comments: [420] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

A somewhat interesting (if outdated) article on Syria: [421] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2018 (EDT)

Somehwat interesting op-ed on Trump potentially adopting a neocon attitude on Syria: [422] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

I removed this info that I previously added:

• September 2018—As the U.S. apparently became increasingly involved in the Syrian conflict, President Trump reportedly agreed to indefinitely keep U.S. troops in Syria despite previously supporting pulling out entirely.<ref>Multiple references:
• Brown, Benjamin (September 7, 2018). Trump reportedly approves new objectives in Syria, keeping military presence indefinitely. Fox News. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
• Kheel, Rebecca (September 7, 2018). Trump extends indefinite Syria strategy: report. The Hill. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
• Hayward, John (September 7, 2018). Trump’s Envoy to Syria: ‘We Are Not in a Hurry to Pull Out’. Breitbart News. Retrieved September 7, 2018.

See also:

• Tomlinson, Lucas; Griffin, Jennifer (September 7, 2018). US Marines launch live-fire air assault into Syria desert in 'strong message' to Russia. Fox News. Retrieved September 7, 2018.</ref>

The reason why is because of this article which states that the U.S. may get other countries to occupy Syria in its place. We'll find out what ultimately happens.

The U.S. might pull out some troops from South Korea: [423] Also, the State Department froze funding to a humanitarian organization: [424] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, both Trump and Bolton denied planning on withdrawing, though Trump did indicate he wants to eventually leave: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

A great statement by Trump, where he strongly criticized Bush for invading Iraq: 12 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2018 (EDT)

Would it be appropriate to respond militarily if a globalist organization like the EU forced one or more of our allies to surrender control of their militaries to unelected bureaucrats who have the capacity to use those armies to enforce that organization's policies? Would it be appropriate to consider such an event to be an act of aggression against those allies? --Geopolitician (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration proposed increasing spending for its military forces in Europe, which could possibly be added as a failure: [425] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

However, the Pentagon is analyzing the cost of having U.S. troops in Germany: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

But the Trump Administration says it doesn't want to putt out of Germany: [426] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

More on this: [427] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is urging the Afghan troops it supports to pull out of the rural areas of Afghanistian: 1,2 Now, if only U.S. troops would pull out entirely of the country. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

Update on Afghanistian: [428] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, the Pentagon will withdraw counterterrorism troops from Africa so it can focus on countering Russia and China: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2018 (EST)

The U.S. is increasing airstrikes in Afghanistan: [429] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Interesting op-ed on pulling troops out of the Middle East, though I don't think there's any good place for it in the article: [430] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2018 (EST)

While several media sources reported that Trump ordered the U.S. to withdraw 7,000 troops from Afghanistan (1,2,3), the White House is now saying that Trump did not make a decision yet: 1,2 Hopefully, he will (at least) substantially withdraw troops there and not be held hostage from his globalist/hawkish advisors. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (EST)

Another source on this topic: [431] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2018 (EST)

In 2018, the U.S. admitted it will not see a military victory n Afghanistan: [432] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2019 (EST)

As the U.S. reduces its operations in Africa, Israel is taking over: [433] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (EST)

Syrian strikes

Quick question. Why are the Syrian strikes listed as achievements? If all they end up doing is empowering Sunni jihadists AND, as the front page of this wiki indicates, they have no moral justification, shouldn't they be listed as failures, as the lack of replacements for Obama holdovers currently are? --Geopolitician (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

This wasn't an easy decision to make, but Trump apparently chose the most limited option -- the airstrikes only his three targets directly involved with the chemical weapons program, and they did not hurt Syrian military capabilities in any other way (and they didn't even destroy the entire chemical weapons stockpile). They sent a message on using chemical weapons on innocent people while not doing anything to weaken the Syrian government's position in the war and not doing anything to militarily confront the Russians. And while many conservatives opposed the strike, some like Sebastian Gorka (who is not a neocon) supported them. It wasn't easy to decide where to put this, but with it all considered, I think there's a much better case for listing it as an achievement (and I still mentioned that many conservatives opposed the move in order to tell the whole story). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

While it appears that fears of WWIII haven't been realized (yet), I am still concerned about Sunni jihadists. Although ISIS has been (almost) totally defeated, another wannabe Sunni caliphate is rising: Turkey, under the leadership of Erdogan. Right now, Erdogan is playing a double game. He's remaining in NATO and calling for Assad's ouster, but has also entered into a pact with Russia and Iran to allow his troops to have a presence in Syria (against Assad's wishes) in order to expel American influence from the region. His end goal is to make sure US-Russian relations are as bad as possible while his own country keeps its relations with them as friendly as possible. That way, while the US and Russia are going at it, he can expand his caliphate south towards Mecca.

These strikes seem to play right into Erdogan's hands. US-Russia relations are now worse than ever, while both remain friendly to Turkey due to Erdogan's double game. And in the end, Sunni jihadists come out victorious. --Geopolitician (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

It's obviously debatable, and I won't argue it further. When debatable achievements like this come, I try to note both sides of the arguments while still weighing whether the good outweighed the bad (or vice-versa).

Not related to the above, I'm saving these articles on Syria here, for future reference: 1,2,3,4,5 (articles on earlier incidents: 1,2,3,4,5) --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Here's an interesting article related to Trump's (apparent) Syria policy: [434] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

The U.S. will stay indefinitely in Syria: [435] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2018 (EST)

Trump hinted that the U.S. would withdraw from Syria: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2018 (EST)

Visiting overseas troops

Trump reportedly hasn't visited American soldiers in war zones overseas because he doesn't believe that they should be fighting overseas in the first place: [436] While the New York Times is portraying him negatively, this actually is a very good thing. Even if national policy hasn't changed (yet, at least), the president has not adopted a globalist mindset. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Peace with Russia?

Here's an article from the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/c1721646-4d51-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493 --Geopolitician (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

Are we about to lose Poland?

I'm becoming increasingly worried that President Trump will go down in history as "the President who lost Poland."

Over the past five months, the goodwill that was brought about by Trump's speech in Warsaw has slowly been evaporating. Problems began in January when the Polish Parliament decided to pass a law that would criminalize public statements claiming that Poland was responsible for Holocaust-related crimes committed on Polish soil.[437] This elicited a very harsh response from Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Poland of Holocaust denial, while both Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and opposition MP Yair Lapid outright stated that Poland as a country bore responsibility for the Holocaust. [438][439][440]

Since then, Poland and Israel have been engaging in an increasingly bitter diplomatic dispute. This diplomatic dispute has led to a dramatic increase in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments and rhetoric among Poles, including among state-owned media and politicians.[441][442][443] Things only got worse when Poland -- who prior to this incident was a staunch ally of Israel in the anti-Israel European Union -- refused to either participate in the effort to block the EU's motion to condemn President Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem or send an envoy to the opening ceremony of the embassy. [444][445]

Meanwhile, the United States has made it clear that it supports Israel over Poland in this dispute. It has condemned Poland's law as infringing on freedom of speech and academic inquiry [446], and President Trump has signed a bill requiring the State Department to monitor and encourage countries affected by the Holocaust to either return land stolen from Jews by the Nazis to their rightful owners or provide substitute compensation -- including but not limited to property never owned by Holocaust survivors or victims -- to Holocaust survivors or their heirs as fair play and substantial justice may require. [447] This bill is deemed highly controversial, and some claim that it violates international law. Furthermore, I have met multiple Poles online (on Twitter and on Breitbart's comment sections) that have stated that they now consider the US and Israel to be enemies of Poland in response to this crisis. Some have gone as far as advocating severing diplomatic ties or even going to war with the US and Israel over what they see as a malicious attack on Polish sovereignty. Either way, they used to admire President Trump. Now, they despise him.

Although we haven't reached that point yet, I'm becoming increasingly worried that President Trump will go down in history as "the President who lost Poland." Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that it is willing to side with the globalist EU over the United States, if President Trump does not side with Poland over Israel in this diplomatic dispute. Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that despite the migrant crisis, it would consider the globalist EU to be the lesser of two evils if the United States engages in behavior that Poland deems to be infringing on Polish sovereignty. I fear that unless we fix this diplomatic crisis, we can forget the possibility of an alliance with Poland against globalism and Islamism. -- --Geopolitician (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Relations seem to be pretty strong again, and the U.S. may build a base in the country (which is a separate issue to debate over).[448] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (EDT)

More on that proposed base: [449] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2018 (EDT)

Miscellaneous countries

Turkey

Because of U.S. pressure, Turkey is giving the American Christian pastor house arrest rather than having to stay in prison: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump (and Mike Pence) say that if Turkey doesn't release the pastor, it will see large sanctions enacted against it: [450] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

Articles on the effect the U.S. is having on Turkey's economy (though other factors may also be at work): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration said it will do more sanctions if Brunson isn't released: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

The administration rejected an offer by Turkey on this matter: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2018 (EDT)

Some Americans remain detained by Turkey: [451] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (EST)

I removed this for being a one-time off-the-record comment that doesn't appear to be official policy. It is too insignificant, at least compared to the others, to include here. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

India

Interesting articles on what appears to be a major deal on secure military communications that would allow the U.S. to sell sensitive military equipment to India: [452][453][454] This may be something to add, but I don't know. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

Nicaragua

The Trump Administration enacted sanctions some Nicaraguan officials for human rights violations: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2018 (EST)