Blue Press Journal

Tag: US foreign policy

  • A House Divided: Why Trump’s Support for Russia at the G20 is Scaring the Allies

    October 31, 2026

    The G20 was set up to facilitate cooperation between the world’s most powerful economies, however the recent events in Atlanta have exposed the growing divide between the US and traditional allies in Europe due to Trump’s consistent support for Russia.

    Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump engaged in conversation outdoors, surrounded by other individuals.

    The Photo That Would Never Happen

    This week, tensions boiled to the surface as the G20 foreign ministers meeting in Atlanta saw the US unable to take the traditional family photo due to some European envoys refusing to pose next to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

    Europe clearly felt so strongly about refusing to give the dictators a propaganda win that they refused to attend. However, with the Trump administration and Marco Rubio at the helm, the US are forging ahead and sending a message to their G7 partners saying ‘business as usual’.

    Should They Be Invited Due to Their Large Economy?

    The argument for including Russia in the G20 is that they are one of the biggest economies in the world. The G20 is based around GDP and therefore this argument seems valid. However, many international law experts and leaders from Europe argue that having a large economy doesn’t mean that they can invade.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine broke the core values of the G20, international security and stability of trade. When a country is using their resources to remove another country’s sovereignty, they have lost their right to partake in a forum that aims to keep the world in order. Despite being one of the world’s largest economies, Russia’s actions have rendered it a pariah state.

    Why Is Trump Supporting Russia?

    This leads onto the question that has been dominating headlines for years. Why does Donald Trump still support Russia joining the G20 with them being aggressors in Ukraine?

    Deal Orientated: Trump has always had a deal orientated approach to foreign policy. He probably sees Russia as vital to creating a new balance of power in the world, or as an alternative to China. He sees it as losing leverage if they are excluded.

    America First Isolationist Policies: Ignoring the moral issues that European allies have with Russia helps show Trump’s views that America will not be told what to do by traditional alliances. If the EU refuse to take part in the photo then the Trump administration seem happy to allow this to happen as long as he still has a direct connection to Moscow.

    End the War on Russia’s Terms: Trump has often spoken about how he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Many are worried that his version of peace would involve recognising Russia’s territorial gains and inviting them back onto the world stage. This would reward the invasion.

    The Road to Miami

    The meetings held in Atlanta, led by Marco Rubio are just a taster for the main event, the G20 leaders summit which will be hosted by President Trump at his golf club in Miami this December.

    By holding the summit at his property, Trump is showing that he wants a very personal approach to diplomacy. This also shows that he doesn’t feel like the rules of the old world should apply. However, as shown by the lack of a photo, you can invite a dictator but you cannot force the neighbours to smile.

    With the G20 being hosted by someone who prioritizes an aggressor over their most trusted allies, its functionality remains uncertain. While Russia may possess the economic strength to secure an invitation, the ongoing war in Ukraine undermines their moral standing to participate.

  • The Trump’s Avoidable Crisis: Looking Back at the Collapse of the Iran Nuclear Deal

    by Winston Wendell

    President Barack Obama defended the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with a blunt warning: “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.”

    Cracked gavel breaking over map of Iran with USA and Iran flags and protest figures

    Now, years later, I watch that warning turn painfully real. When Donald Trump pulled the United States out of a nuclear deal that had kept Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in check, his administration threw the country into a disaster of its own making.

    On the military front, this war’s a failure from every angle. Targeted strikes came and went, and the Iranian government endures, now with even tougher hardliners from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge. Iran still holds most of its missile stock, its mobile launchers, its underground bunkers. Drone and missile factories keep running. Worst of all, Tehran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz—is even tighter. Those photos of commercial ships stuck near Larak Island say it all. Washington’s shortsighted choices gave our adversaries control of some of the world’s most important economic lifelines.

    The cost? It’s staggering, both in dollars and lives. We burned through about $25 billion at the start, and the spending hasn’t stopped. At home, Americans feel it everywhere, gas prices, groceries, you name it. But it’s the human cost that hurts most. U.S. service members have died, and hundreds cope with wounds they’ll never shake, all for a conflict with no clear end, no real transparency, and not a word of congressional approval. Like millions of others, I feel deep frustration. This is a war with no purpose, no strategy, and no exit.

    Trump’s aggressive reversal left America boxed in with terrible options. If Washington caves to Tehran—giving up huge sums of money or control over the Strait of Hormuz—we abandon the basic principle of free maritime navigation. Global commerce depends on that. An emboldened Iranian regime, flush with cash, will just buy new air defenses, load up on missiles, and use the Strait for leverage as long as it wants.

    No one wins here. There’s only the bitter fallout of a war we never needed, a conflict that put America’s security at risk, bled our economy, and left the world less stable than ever.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Trump’s Reckless Rhetoric: Provoking War Crimes in Iran?

    Blue Press Journal – Donald Trump’s recent threats to obliterate Iran’s energy infrastructure and desalination plants have ignited a firestorm of criticism, drawing widespread condemnation from international legal experts and human rights organizations. Such declarations, made on his Truth Social platform, are not merely bombastic; they represent a dangerous escalation that eminent figures warn could constitute war crimes under international law.

    Trump’s explicit warning of striking “all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells, and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!)” has been met with urgent concern. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt unequivocally stated that “attacking civilian infrastructure, and acutely desalination plants, is a war crime.” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, echoed this sentiment, calling the categorical framing of these threats a clear indication of a “threat to commit war crimes.”

    The humanitarian implications are catastrophic. Erika Guevara-Rosas of Amnesty International highlighted that such actions would “plunge an entire country into darkness,” potentially depriving millions of their fundamental human rights to water, food, healthcare, and an adequate standard of living. As Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, told The New York Times, there’s “no difference between what Trump is threatening to do in Iran and what the International Criminal Court charged four Russian commanders for doing in Ukraine,” referencing recent ICC arrest warrants for targeting civilian objects.

    Iran, a water-stressed nation, faces suffering despite the aid of desalination plants. Grist’s Frida Garza noted that attacks on power plants could cripple water treatment, causing scarcity and disease. Iran’s refusal for direct diplomatic talks threatens Middle East stability and adherence to international law. Trump’s reckless policies invite further instability and humanitarian disaster.

  • Beyond Generosity: Why Robust U.S. Support for Ukraine is Critical for American National & Economic Security

    The security of Kyiv directly impacts the security of Main Street.

    Blue Press Journal – Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for sovereignty is often framed as a moral imperative or an act of generosity from its allies. However, a closer look reveals that sustained U.S. support for Ukraine is not just altruistic; it is a strategic investment in American national and economic security. This pivotal moment demands that U.S. policymakers and the public understand the profound implications for their own prosperity and global stability.

    Ukraine’s Unwavering European Path & Enduring American Partnership

    At its core, Ukraine is irrevocably committed to a future intertwined with Europe. This profound aspiration, coupled with a deep appreciation for American partnership, shapes their daily decisions, from energy infrastructure to military planning and economic recovery. Despite fluctuating political signals from Washington (Donald Trump), Ukrainians continue to view the United States with remarkable gratitude. Their primary concern isn’t outright abandonment, but rather the destabilizing inconsistency that could undermine long-term planning and deterrence.

    American Support: A Nuanced Reality

    A persistent misconception in Washington suggests a waning of public support for Ukraine. Yet, the data tells a more reassuring story. Polling from organizations like the Atlantic Council, utilizing data from HarrisX, consistently demonstrates that a majority of Americans – approximately six in ten – continue to support U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including vital military aid. [Source: Atlantic Council via HarrisX polling data, often cited in their analyses of public opinion, e.g., “The Resilience of American Support for Ukraine”]. Americans largely view Russia as the aggressor, express deep distrust of the Russian government, and oppose territorial concessions that would reward aggression.

    The challenge isn’t public opposition, but rather a lack of sustained attention. Domestic concerns like inflation, housing costs, and electoral politics understandably dominate daily discourse. Ukraine often doesn’t top these lists, not because Americans oppose assistance, but because they assume the issue is being competently managed. The public is distracted, not hostile, highlighting a crucial communication gap that U.S. advocates must bridge.

    The Economic Stakes: Why Global Stability Benefits Every American

    The most critical aspect often overlooked is how Ukraine’s fight directly safeguards the foundational principles of the international order that underpin American prosperity. For decades, the U.S. economy has thrived within a predictable global framework: secure trade routes, stable borders, enforceable rules, and alliances that deter major conflicts. This stability reduces risk, lowers costs, stimulates investment, creates American jobs, and allows the U.S. to shape global standards for trade, technology, and finance.

    The immediate aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 offered a stark preview of these economic vulnerabilities. Energy prices surged globally, food costs climbed due to disrupted grain and fertilizer markets, and shipping and insurance rates increased, fueling inflation across the economy. [Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis on the economic impact of the war in Ukraine, e.g., “Global Economic Outlook: A Rocky Road Ahead” – specific chapter on Ukraine impacts]. These ripple effects led to higher interest rates, impacting mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and small businesses – hitting American pocketbooks directly.

    If Russian aggression goes unchecked, the economic consequences will only deepen. A world where aggression is rewarded leads to structural risk, higher costs for everything, and diminished confidence for investment. This means slower growth, fragile supply chains, and greater volatility in retirement savings. Governments would spend more reacting to crises and less investing in domestic priorities. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, “allowing Russia to dictate terms… would set a dangerous precedent for revisionist powers globally, destabilizing key trade routes and investment climates.” [Source: Council on Foreign Relations, e.g., “The Global Economic Impact of the War in Ukraine”].

    A Clear-Eyed National Security Imperative

    Beyond economics, supporting Ukraine is vital for U.S. national security. Ukraine is not asking the United States to fight its war, but to recognize that American security and prosperity are inextricably linked to its outcome. A failure to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine would signal weakness, inviting further challenges to the post-World War II international order. This would directly impact the credibility of NATO, the cornerstone of European security and a vital alliance for the U.S. [Source: NATO Official Statements, e.g., “NATO’s Response to Russia’s War in Ukraine”].

    If the United States desires a world governed by rules, predictability, and sovereign choice rather than coercion and chaos, it cannot afford to waver now. The cost of inaction – both economic and strategic – will far outweigh the investment required to ensure Ukraine’s success and uphold a stable global environment. Supporting Ukraine isn’t just about Ukraine; it’s about safeguarding America’s own power, prosperity, and the principles upon which its security rests.