Perhaps the Democrats will ignore the Constitution regarding the District of Columbia, you mean? Surely there is a check or balance for that?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Looks like some sort of deal is in the works for Greenland. Not *all* of it, but some of it "forever".


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Trump cancelled the tariffs on NATO. Talks continue.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Trump says a framework for the deal on Greenland is in place.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - 11:58 pm: Edit

"Danish MP says deal Trump claims to have struck over Greenland is 'definitely not a deal'
In an interview with Sky News on Wednesday, a member of Denmark’s parliament, Sascha Faxe, has suggested that the deal Donald Trump claims to have struck with Nato over Greenland is “not real”.

“The thing is, there can’t be a deal without having Greenland as part of the negotiations, first of all,” Faxe said.

She went on to reference earlier comments from Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, saying: “I have heard from the Greenlanders that I know - so we have a Greenlandic MP in Denmark – and she’s very clear that this is not a prerogative of Rutte and Nato; they can’t trade the underground in Greenland, or Greenlandic security without Greenlanders being part of it.”

“And they are very clear: Greenland is not for sale, they are not up for negotiations,” Faxe added. “So it’s not real negotiations, it’s two men who have had a conversation,” she said.

“It’s definitely not a deal.”"

Copied from The Guardian

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 12:14 am: Edit

"Rutte was asked if Greenland will still be "under the Kingdom of Denmark in this framework deal" that Trump mentioned.
"That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations tonight with the president," Rutte said in response.
"He (Trump) is very much focused on what do we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region - where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and the Russians are more and more active - how we can protect it.""
Source - Reuters

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 12:40 am: Edit

IOW, Rutte discussed what more NATO could do in the arctic.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 12:56 am: Edit

Jeff Wile, maybe this is of interest to you. It goes deeper in to how the Ukrainians defend themselves. https://open.substack.com/pub/roguesystemsrecon/p/the-drone-shieldwall-of-2026-ukraines?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2eui7k

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 03:54 am: Edit

Looks like President Trump is applying common sense...

No deal (at this stage) and no use of force confirmed, but it appears Greenland will remain poltically and economically linked to just Denmark - but the Trade Tariff threat is being cancelled.

It does look like there is some form of 'Arctic Sentry' deal beiong discussed, which will improve Security (I would guess, NATO allocating more resources to defend the 'Greenland and the North' area) - so President Trump did get something out of it.

Going to take a while to rebuild those burnt bridges, but this is a start.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 05:14 am: Edit

Europe cannot exist without the US so they can just get over themselves.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 08:23 am: Edit

"The framework of a future deal." I'm not gonna lie; that sounds like a familiar vaporware disclaimer from the president, along the lines of his famous "concepts of a plan" for healthcare.

At the end of the day, the general secretary of NATO can no more promise away parts of Greenland to the U.S. without Denmark's approval than he can promise away parts of Alaska to Canada without the U.S.'s approval. Sovereign is just that: sovereign.

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 09:04 am: Edit

"When Trump says that he isn't sure NATO would answer a call if the US was attacked, he means Russia and/or China (maybe Iran or North Korea) not a bunch of bandits in Afghanistan. He means war that would risk the existence of Denmark, not war that would risk a few dozen Danish soldiers."

Wow. As a UK veteran who has spent many weeks and months serving shoulder to shoulder with US and NATO soldiers, sailors and airmen, those comments are frankly offensive.

Only one NATO country has ever invoked Article 5 - the USA. We stood up, fulfilled our obligations. So did the Danes. Thanks are not required, but I hope I never see anything like that written on this website again.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 09:22 am: Edit

There was nothing offensive in my post, pretending there was isn’t justified. Reality is reality. Helping the US in a minor remote war is not the same as helping the US in a major mortal conflict. Afghanistan was not going to fire a nuclear ICBM at Copenhagen or Liverpool.

I think the miscommunication came from discussing two separate scenarios. War with a bunch of bandits vs war with someone who has nuclear missiles.

Remember that what the US did for Europe (twice) was on a vastly different scale than what Europe did for the US, and frankly that European help benefited Europe at least as much as it helped the US, being mostly symbolic. Note, even in WWII the mortal risk to the US is far less than what Trump speaks of. I am explaining him, not defending him.

Continuing this part of the conversation is not going to be tolerated.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Leadership: Russian Resilience
January 22, 2026: The four year war in Ukraine has not caused any significant protests or unrest among the population. The loss of 1.2 million soldiers killed, disabled or missing was becoming a problem, until the government began hiring foreigners to die for Russia in Ukraine.
The waves of economic sanctions were supposed to cause so much popular unrest that Russia would be forced to get out of Ukraine. The sanctions failed because of cheating and that Russia simply turned to neutral or pro-Russia nations like India, most of South America and many other areas not aligned with NATO members. If Russians missed a favorite Western consumer or commercial item, the non-NATO world could supply you with an adequate substitute, Even NATO country items could be obtained, with a surcharge added to pay for the extra intermediaries or sometimes directly.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin also has loyal and capable allies in the 80 governors of Russian provinces, regions and major metropolitan areas. It’s the governors who recruit the troops, and take care of those who are disabled and the families of soldiers who were killed. In return, the governors have considerable autonomy. They don’t get grief from Moscow unless a governor or his associates are involved in a major corruption scandal. Putin will tolerate minor corruption because that is the grease that keeps the political machine going. Anyone who gets greedy has to be punished and it is the central government who ultimately has to take care of that.
This system works because it is the latest version of an ancient system that worked for the monarchy as well as nearly 70 years of Communist rule and now the quasi democracy of the Russian Federation. This system can fail if there are economic or political problems the central government cannot handle. That’s happened many times in the last thousand years of Russian history. Those disasters are remembered and noted in the Russian media and speeches given by officials. If you don’t forget you are less likely to repeat past mistakes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: Russian Drone Developers Surge Ahead
January 22, 2026: Iran developed its delta-wing 200 kg propeller driven Shahed 136 drone a decade ago and it was first used by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen during 2019. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Iran provided Russia with Shahed 136s. By the end of 2022 Iran agreed to assist Russia in building a factory in Russia that would produce a Russian version of the Shahed 136 called Geran. Until late 2024, when the Geran factory in Russia was operational, Iran manufactured the Geran and received help from Russia in upgrading the Shaheed drones. Since 2022, Russia has used about 50,000 Shaheds and Gerans against Ukraine. During 2025 that meant Ukraine had to deal with five to six thousand Gerans a month. Ukrainian interception methods were quite effective, and only about ten percent of the drones reached their targets. Each of these drones costs Russia about $20,000.
Russia is now producing over 5,000 Gerans a month. These 200 kg drones travel at a speed of 180 kilometers an hour at an altitude of about 100 meters. They carry a 50 kg warhead. GPS navigation is jammable when close to the target while the unjammable, but less accurate INS backup is not affected.
Russia has continually upgraded its Gerans with improved electronics. That means guidance systems that are resistant to jamming and use more effective and flexible guidance systems. The first Gerans only had inertial guidance systems and a CRPA/Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna. This arrangement soon failed as the Ukrainians used more powerful jamming and misdirection/spoofing techniques. To deal with this, in early 2025 improved CRPAs and a video camera were added to keep the Gerans effective. After that Ukrainian SIMs were added so the Gerans could use cell phone signals for navigation. At this point Gerans were able to communicate with each other and operate in preplanned clusters and cooperate with each other in a mesh network to limit the impact of Ukrainian jamming and other electronic warfare techniques. That soon led to use of Chinese MESH communication systems that enabled Russian ground based operators to control groups of Gerans. The operators could change targets or have the Gerans fly higher or lower to deal with Ukrainian countermeasures. A more recent addition was an infrared/night vision camera that was supplied with images of targets to improve accuracy as the Gerans came within visual range of a target.
By 2025 there was a larger variety of warheads available including thermobaric/fuel-air explosive, incendiary-fragmentation, high-explosive, high-explosive airburst, and submunitions. In 2024 a 90kg warhead was introduced that combined a penetrator-shaped charge with a layer of steel balls to pierce fortified infrastructure and inflict maximum casualties.
The most recent Geran-3 is a jet powered model that weighs 370 kg with a top speed of nearly 600 kilometers an hour. This is three times faster than the prop driven models and much more difficult for Ukrainian air defenses to deal with. Ukraine soon came up with a $3,000 interceptor drone called Wild Hornets’ Sting. Russia will probably respond with rear-facing video cameras on the Germans to alert operators to the presence of Ukrainian interceptors. The Gerans can take evasive maneuvers to avoid getting shot down. The Russians also experimented with a Geran equipped with a heat-seeking air-to-air missile.
Early in the war most of the Gerans were detected and destroyed by a clever Ukrainian air defense system created by two Ukrainian engineers. Called Sky Fortress, it consisted of nearly 10,000 cell phones mounted on two-meter poles with their microphones activated to detect the unique sounds of propeller-driven Gerans flying nearby. All this data goes to a command post where operators can triangulate on, locate and track the incoming drones and direct groups of gun trucks, equipped with multiple machine-guns and lots of ammunition, to positions the drones will pass over. The gun trucks have managed to destroy most of the drones they encountered. Ukraine built several hundred of these gun trucks and deployed them quickly via roads or cross country to carry out the interception. This system costs less than a single Patriot air defense missile. This drone defense system is operated by thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, and its simplicity, effectiveness and low cost has led NATO countries to request more details from the Ukrainians, including visits to NATO countries to further explain the system. Russia responded by having their Gerans fly higher, beyond the range of the machine-guns. Ukraine went on to develop new countermeasures.
Year by year Russia and Ukraine develop new offensive weapons to use against each other. Ukrainian air strikes use larger drones at targets deep inside Russia.
Like most western militaries, Russia has become dependent on the use of missiles and drones instead of artillery and airstrikes. Ukraine reports that, from late 2022 through late 2024, Russia used 4,800 missiles and nearly 150,000 attack drones. The missiles are expensive, most costing one or two million dollars each, while some of the drones cost $20,000. More recent battlefield drone designs cost only a few hundred dollars each. It was thought that the inexpensive drones would replace the use of 155mm artillery. The range and cost of artillery shells vary from $3,000 to $100,000 depending on version and purpose. The basic 155mm shell weighs 43 kg and contains about seven kg of explosives. The standard Russian equivalent is the 152mm shell.
The only Russian sources of weapons and munitions have been Iran and North Korea, which has a feeble economy with a GDP of only $30 billion and has long been subject to economic sanctions. Iran is also sanctioned but has oil to export and a GDP of over $400 billion. Russia has over fifty firms manufacturing over two dozen types of drones. These include three dozen different models, most of them with a range of 40 kilometers while about a dozen have ranges of 100 to 2,000 kilometers.
Russia is building a drone manufacturing infrastructure. By 2026 330,000 people will be involved in the development, production, and operation of drones by 2026. By 2035 1.5 million people may be involved in drone design, development and production.
FYEO

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 03:27 pm: Edit

The Board of Peace charter is published in full by the Times of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/

It is a r e m a r k a b l e document.

The interesting points are:

•There is nothing about rebuilding Gaza in it, which was the subject of the original mandate.

•Membership is by invite only and limited to three years, unless the member state transfer 1 Billion USD cash to the board.

•Funding for the organisations expenses is voluntary.

•The Chairman have full control over the organisation, how it is run and what it will do. (The board will vote on matters but the chairman decides on what they will vote on.)

•The inaugural chairman is Donald Trump.

•The chairman appoints the successor. (No voting)

•If/when the Chairman dissolves the Board the Executive board decides what will happen with all the money. The Chairman has full control over that body.


Is this an attempt to set up a competitor to the UN? Don't know. Maybe a Trump version were the main thing is that he is in charge?

In any case this organisation will make it easy and legal to give Trump lots of money.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Interesting concept. Maybe I should rewrite the corporate ADB charter like that?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 22, 2026 - 11:40 pm: Edit

You mean you haven’t!?!

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 02:40 am: Edit

It seems President Trump made a further speech about NATO allies, whilst getting on the return flight last night.

President Trump said Allied Nato troops stayed "a little off the front lines" during the war in Afghanistan.

The fuller text seems to indicate he really doesn't think much of NATO Allies?

Two aspects stand out : -

"We've never needed them," he said, adding: "We have never really asked anything of them."

and

"They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan," he said, "and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines".

Not surpringly, the UK Parliament has called this an absolute insult and hopefully most people would agree, even if they don't think it is an insult, it is very rude and unhelpful?

I agree some NATO members perhaps could have done more (but President Trump said it wasn't needed, so even that perhaps is harsh?) - but a blanket insult, is not appropriate.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 07:26 am: Edit

Allied Nato troops stayed "a little off the front lines" during the war in Afghanistan

I was there and can attest that this is a lie.

Heck, I've hitched rides from Foreign "route clearance" units to get to some bases. Shindand, Hairatan Gate, Spin Buldak and Bastion to name a few.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Mark the date and time. I agree with Howard the comments were not helpful, and with Grafton that the comments were not entirely true. Now if Jessica would say something uncatty we could make it a trifecta.

There were NATO units in all echelons, and if most were not front line, most troops of most armies including the US are not on the front line. The teeth-to-tail ratio has climbed since 1870. The only all-teeth armies I can think of today are in African jungles.

I have commented earlier than the European contribution in that theater benefitted them (gaining combat experience most had not had since 1945) more than it helped the US, and Trump might have said that. I wish he had.

I think what we have here is the biggest spoken blunder since Jan 7 1945 when Montgomery claimed that HE personally won the Battle of the Bulge. Trump needs to shut up and let Levitt apologize for him. She at least has a filter and does not pontificate about things she doesn’t understand.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 12:13 pm: Edit

There are plenty of examples where NATO allied nations behavior has been somewhere between profoundly unhelpful and downright detrimental. Afghanistan isn't one of those examples.

The alliance worked well together, won the fight, and established more stability than could really have been reasonably expected over a surprisingly long period of time.

The ending wasn't really very good at all, but I wouldn't blame that on NATO allies at all.

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 12:37 pm: Edit

The ending was horrible, but inevitable, given the tribalism and corruption of the Afghans. It wasn’t the fault of the US, the allies, Trump, or even Biden. (Jessica, want to agree here?) It was always going to happen. Maybe things collapsed faster under Biden, but collapsing was inevitable. We should not have stayed so long hoping we could change it.

Did the allies help? Yes.

Were some of their troops on the front line? Yes.

Were the allied troops absolutely necessary? No, but they did give a worn out US military a much needed and much appreciated break. When the Army was filling staff jobs in front line battalions with Navy and Air Force officers, and were sending artillery ipunits without cannons to fight as infantry, the Army needed a break. (The Marines were always there in equal position to the Army. I don’t know if the Coast Guard sent anyone. I do know that a tiny number of members of the Texas State Guard — militia! — were given special transfers to the Texas National Guard and did tours. For all I know, Boy Scouts were next.) ((Yes, I volunteered four times to go, but to be fair, I always knew I would never be accepted. I would have gone if allowed. I don’t claim I would have been all that useful. I was ordered to stop volunteering as it created useless paperwork.))

Could the allies have changed the outcome? No, it was inevitable.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 04:27 pm: Edit

I was told "you're too old and fat" when I volunteered. I'd have been a jamming Warrant Safety Officer.

I was offered a GS12 position to be the Chief Safety Manager for the 401st, which at the time was the largest brigade in the Army. BUT it didn't come with "civil status" or overtime. So it would be about a $100K loss of salary and I'd be booted after a year. So I told Lorese (the one going to rotate out) no thank you.

As an aside, IIRC Lorese served 5 years in Afghanistan as the 401st Safety manager despite Army regs saying you only get 1 year in theater; no one would agree to come be her replacement, so I knew her very well. Last I heard she was the Arifjan Logistics safety manager as a GS13. She was retired Army (20 years) and was on the way to having two pensions.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, January 23, 2026 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I'm not Jessica, however; I think anybody with a sense of history could see how Afghanistan would end.

Credit to President Trump for biting the bullet and starting the process, as well as too President Biden for following through.