Trump's "Liberation Day", $TRUMP Cryptocurrency, Transparency & Putin gets a birthday everyday.

Subject: Comprehensive Report on President Donald Trump's Economic Measures, Cryptocurrency Enterprise, and Transparency Concerns

Date: April 3, 2025

---

1. Overview

This report consolidates the key developments under President Donald Trump's current term relating to sweeping tariff policies, the launch of the $TRUMP cryptocurrency, alleged mechanisms of political favour-trading, and emerging parallels with authoritarian models of governance. It also addresses the United Kingdom's response, including its post-Brexit capabilities and strategic leverage.

---

2. "Liberation Day" Tariffs and Global Economic Fallout

On April 2, 2025, President Trump initiated broad-based import tariffs under a programme labelled "Liberation Day." These measures are marketed as tools to revive American industry but have provoked significant domestic and global consequences.

Tariff Details:

• General Import Tariff: 10% on nearly all foreign goods

• Country-Specific Increases:

  • China: 34%

  • EU: 20%

  • Japan: 24%

  • Cambodia: Up to 49%

  • United Kingdom: 10%

Economic Effects:

• The UK has suffered substantial economic losses due to Brexit. Independent estimates, including those from the Centre for European Reform, suggest that by 2025 the UK economy is more than £40 billion smaller annually than it would have been inside the EU.

• Trade volumes, investment levels, and labour productivity have all been negatively impacted, with many UK-based firms reporting increased costs and decreased market access.

• The loss of frictionless trade with the EU has not been offset by new trade deals, which have offered only marginal economic benefits.

• The 10% U.S. tariff now compounds these losses, disproportionately affecting key export sectors such as automotive, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals.

• A 10% tariff on UK goods adds additional post-Brexit pressure to the UK economy, compounding the losses already incurred since leaving the EU.

• According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and Centre for European Reform, Brexit has reduced UK GDP by approximately 4% annually compared to if it had remained in the EU, with trade volumes and investment significantly impacted.

• The additional US tariffs are expected to worsen this economic drag, particularly affecting sectors reliant on transatlantic trade.

• While proponents of Brexit promised gains from independent trade policy, there is little evidence of any major economic upside materialising. Trade deals struck post-Brexit (e.g., with Australia or Japan) have delivered minimal GDP impact, often measured in fractions of a percent.

• In this context, the UK’s lack of influence in EU collective trade retaliation, combined with its direct exposure to US tariffs, raises questions about whether Brexit has achieved any tangible economic benefit.

• The Dow Jones dropped 1,400 points; S&P 500 and Nasdaq fell by 4% and 5.1%, respectively.

• U.S. household costs are projected to rise by an average of $1,350 per year.

• Global economic forecasts have been revised downward amid recession concerns.

International Reactions:

• China and EU condemned the measures and are considering retaliation.

• UK Response: The UK launched a four-week consultation on counter-tariffs and proposed incentives to appease U.S. tech firms. Although it lacks EU-scale negotiating power post-Brexit, it retains strategic tools, including:

  • Independent WTO membership

  • Control of bilateral trade deals

  • Defence leverage via key military agreements (e.g., US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, Polaris Sales Agreement)

  • Strategic intelligence and military collaboration as part of NATO

These elements collectively strengthen the UK’s negotiation stance.

---

3. $TRUMP Cryptocurrency: Structure, Influence, and Ethics

On January 17, 2025, Trump launched a meme cryptocurrency, $TRUMP, on the Solana blockchain.

Key Facts:

• Total Issuance: 1 billion tokens

• Public Sale (ICO): 200 million released

• Retained Holdings: 800 million coins owned by Trump-affiliated firms

• Market Capitalisation (within 24 hours): $27+ billion, valuing Trump’s holdings at over $20 billion

• Revenue Reported by March 2025: $350 million through fees and token sales

Concerns Raised:

• Conflict of Interest: Trump actively influences market conditions through public policy while profiting directly from token valuations.

• Regulatory Blind Spots: $TRUMP operates outside traditional campaign finance and lobbying transparency rules.

Potential Use as Influence Tool:

• Companies or nations could buy $TRUMP tokens en masse to indirectly enrich Trump while signalling allegiance.

• Loyalty through endorsement or financial engagement may be rewarded with softer policy decisions.

• The lack of regulatory oversight on crypto raises serious questions about hidden transactions and quid-pro-quo influence.

---

4. Parallels with Putin’s Consolidation of Power in Russia

The structure and implications of these actions bear a striking resemblance to the methods employed by Vladimir Putin during his rise to and consolidation of power in Russia:

Economic Pressure for Political Loyalty:

• Putin demanded fealty from oligarchs; those who refused (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky) were prosecuted or exiled.

• Trump has used tariffs and economic threats to punish critics and reward allies.

Control Through Wealth Mechanisms:

• Putin controlled oligarchs via access to state resources; Trump’s $TRUMP coin may serve as a modern equivalent, where alignment with Trump’s agenda could imply access to favour or protection.

Undermining Democratic Institutions:

• Putin systematically eroded press freedom, judicial independence, and electoral integrity.

• Trump has repeatedly attacked the media, courts, and democratic processes, culminating in attempts to overturn the 2020 election and hinting at authoritarian ambitions.

Cult of Personality:

• Both leaders have cultivated strongman images and demanded personal loyalty over institutional loyalty.

Though Trump operates within a democratic framework, analysts warn that repeated erosion of norms, coupled with financial self-enrichment via political influence, mirrors early stages of authoritarian consolidation.

---

5. Presidential Enrichment and Transparency Risks

While past U.S. presidents have monetised their post-office careers, Trump has monetised his presidency in real time:

• Trump forfeited his $400,000 salary as a symbolic gesture, but gained billions through brand monetisation, real estate deals, and now cryptocurrency.

• His financial structures allow private gain with limited oversight, giving rise to unprecedented ethical concerns.

Foreign Influence via Crypto:

• Russian-linked wallets or oligarchs could feasibly buy large amounts of $TRUMP tokens.

• Blockchain anonymity (especially when paired with mixers or privacy coins) enables hard-to-trace transfers of wealth.

• Traditional banking scrutiny doesn't apply, making foreign financial influence more plausible.

Though no verified cases of foreign bribery via crypto have been exposed, the infrastructure exists—and oversight remains limited.

---

6. Conclusion

President Trump’s policies and ventures—most notably the $TRUMP coin—highlight a shift from traditional governance to personal financial gain. His tariff actions have destabilised global markets, while his direct involvement in speculative digital assets raises profound ethical and legal questions.

Combined with authoritarian-style loyalty enforcement and regulatory loopholes, these developments pose a serious challenge to U.S. democratic norms and global economic stability.

Meanwhile, Mr Putin continues to get a Birthday every day, having received nearly everything he could have hoped for: division within the United States, tensions within NATO, a fractured transatlantic alliance, and a dramatic shift in Western media and political focus away from Ukraine. Trump’s actions—whether through intent or consequence—have aligned with the key strategic objectives of the Kremlin.

Ongoing scrutiny, international cooperation, and domestic safeguards are essential to prevent the normalisation of self-enrichment and influence peddling at the highest levels of government. are essential to prevent the normalisation of self-enrichment and influence peddling at the highest levels of government.

Greenland, Trump, and Echoes of Pre-WWII Expansionism: A Historical Comparison

Introduction President Donald Trump’s statements regarding Greenland have drawn widespread criticism for their tone and implications. Among his most striking remarks were assertions like “We have to have Greenland,” “We’ll go as far as we have to go,” and “We’re going to get it, one way or the other.” These comments, paired with suggestions that Denmark might face tariffs if it refused to cooperate, have led many to compare his rhetoric with authoritarian playbooks. In particular, meaningful parallels can be drawn to Germany’s behaviour before World War II.

This report explores those comparisons in detail, examining the tone, tactics, and implications of Trump’s Greenland rhetoric in light of historical precedents.

1. Strategic Necessity as Justification Nazi Germany justified its invasions of the Rhineland, Austria (Anschluss), and Czechoslovakia on grounds of strategic or cultural necessity. Hitler argued that Germany needed these territories to defend itself or unify German-speaking peoples.

Similarly, Trump claimed:

• “We have to have Greenland”

• “If we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security”

• “The world needs us to have Greenland”

These statements echo the same logic: that strategic interest overrides sovereignty. This justification is especially troubling when no clear threat or necessity exists—given that the U.S. already operates a major base in Greenland (Thule Air Base) with full cooperation from Denmark.

2. Disregard for Sovereignty and Consent Germany annexed Austria and Sudetenland despite both regions being sovereign. The justification was again national interest or the protection of ethnic Germans. The consent of the population was either manufactured or deemed irrelevant.

Trump and his allies, including J.D. Vance, have repeatedly claimed that the people of Greenland want to become Americans. However, Greenlandic leadership and public statements have made it clear that Greenland is not for sale and that there is no public appetite for becoming part of the United States. This misrepresentation echoes tactics used by authoritarian regimes to manufacture justification for territorial claims.

One of Trump’s most alarming alleged statements (reported by media, though not confirmed in original footage) is:

• “Whether they wish to become Americans or not is secondary.”

While the rest of his statements are verifiable on video, this particular line was attributed via secondary sources. If accurate, it clearly indicates a belief that sovereignty and local wishes are subordinate to American interests.

This tactic has historical parallels with:

• Nazi Germany, which claimed it was acting in the interest of ethnic Germans in Austria and the Sudetenland regardless of broader consent.

• Modern Russia has claimed that populations in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk wished to be part of Russia, despite international condemnation and evidence of coercion and manufactured referenda.

3. Use of Economic Coercion Pre-WWII Germany used a mix of diplomacy, propaganda, and economic pressure to isolate and intimidate countries like Austria and Czechoslovakia before annexing them.

Trump similarly suggested that Denmark might face tariffs or trade repercussions if it refused to allow Greenland to become American territory. While this has not yet materialised, it remains a tool that Trump could use to put pressure on Denmark. The threat of using economic levers to override diplomatic resistance is a hallmark of coercive foreign policy.

4. Undermining Alliances and Multilateral Frameworks Germany’s actions in the 1930s consistently undermined international agreements, especially the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler routinely defied pacts and operated unilaterally.

Trump has similarly:

• Questioned the U.S. commitment to NATO

• Publicly insulted NATO allies

• Pursued unilateral decisions that ignored traditional alliance structures

Attempting to obtain Greenland through threats or economic pressure, rather than alliance-based diplomacy, mirrored a go-it-alone strategy with dangerous precedents.

5. Key Differences (for balance and accuracy): While the rhetorical similarities are clear, it is also important to note the key differences:

• Trump has not used military force to pursue Greenland, although he has repeatedly hinted that "we’ll go as far as we have to go," suggesting it could be an option.

• The U.S. formally remains a democracy, but Trump’s attempts to constrain democratic institutions and consolidate executive power raise legitimate concerns about authoritarian drift.

• No actual annexation attempt has occurred, though statements like “we’re going to get it, one way or the other” and responding “I think it will happen” when asked about annexation, indicate clear intent or desire, even if not acted upon yet.

• Domestic and international pushback against the Greenland idea was immediate and strong

These factors distinguish Trump’s actions from actual authoritarian expansionism, though they do not negate the dangerous tone and precedent.

6. Propaganda, Lies, and the Repetition of Falsehoods Trump is widely known for making misleading and false statements. Independent fact-checkers counted over 30,000 false or misleading claims during his first term in office. This approach echoes the propaganda strategies of authoritarian regimes.

Both Nazi Germany and modern Russia under Putin have used the principle, often attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” By consistently misrepresenting public sentiment in Greenland and justifying coercive actions through strategic falsehoods, Trump’s messaging follows a similar pattern. Repetition of untruths to legitimise controversial ambitions is a hallmark of disinformation campaigns used to manipulate public opinion and international perception.

7. Historical Context: How Greenland Became Part of Denmark Greenland’s status as part of the Kingdom of Denmark dates back centuries—long before the United States even existed. In the early 14th century, the Norwegian crown claimed sovereignty over Greenland. When Norway entered into a union with Denmark in 1380, Greenland came under Danish rule through the Kalmar Union. Although Norway and Denmark eventually separated in 1814, Greenland remained with Denmark.

In the 20th century, Greenland’s colonial status evolved. It became an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and was granted home rule in 1979. In 2009, Greenland assumed further self-government, although foreign affairs and defence remain under Danish control.

This long-standing connection to Denmark and Greenland’s modern autonomy make any claim by an external power—such as the United States—both historically and legally baseless.

8. Geographic and Legal Realities: Canada’s Proximity to Greenland Geographically, Canada lies closer to parts of Greenland than the United States, particularly via the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Canada shares maritime boundaries with Greenland in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, and both countries have historically cooperated on environmental, indigenous, and Arctic security matters.

While Canada has made no claim to Greenland, the notion that the U.S. has a more legitimate claim based on proximity or strategic need is further undermined by this geographic context. If such a flawed logic were applied, Canada would be equally or more justified in asserting influence—yet it has always respected Greenland’s sovereignty and Denmark’s administration.

Conclusion Trump’s remarks about Greenland—whether asserting strategic necessity, dismissing local consent, or threatening economic penalties—mirror elements of authoritarian and pre-WWII rhetoric. These are not harmless words. Language like “We’ll get it one way or the other” reflects a mindset where power and entitlement override diplomacy, respect, and international norms.

Historical comparisons are always imperfect, but they serve a vital role in reminding us where certain patterns can lead. Even without military action, the normalisation of this kind of rhetoric weakens alliances, emboldens adversaries, and risks taking Western democracies down a darker path.

Greenland is not just a territory; it has become a litmus test for whether international cooperation and respect for sovereignty still hold sway in the 21st century.

Sources and Visual References

• Wikipedia: "Greenland under Norwegian rule", "Kalmar Union", "Greenland (Kingdom of Denmark)"

• World Atlas: Historical maps of Greenland and the Danish Realm

• Vivid Maps: "Map of Greenland (1791)"

• Bowen’s Map of Old Greenland (1747)

• Firstpost video clips and Instagram footage of Trump statements

• FactCheck.org & Washington Post Fact Checker: Trump’s false or misleading claims (2017–2020)

• Pew Research Center: Public opinion data on US global image under Trump

• AP News, Reuters, and The Times (UK): Coverage of Trump–Greenland negotiations

• Government of Canada: Arctic foreign policy and maritime boundary agreements with Greenland

• Numerous YouTube videos of Trump actually speaking on Greenland

Visuals:

• Map of Greenland (1791) – Vivid Maps

• Bowen’s Map of Greenland (1747)

• Greenland under Danish rule – Modern map

• Greenland Historical Context (1737, 1890, 1941) – Composite maps

Mr. Claude Malhuret Incredibly Accurate Speech in the French Senate Tuesday, March 4 2025.

Transcript below of speech in the French Senate two days ago by Mr. Claude Malhuret. 

“President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, My dear colleagues,
Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.
Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.
The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.
This is not an illiberal drift, it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.
I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.
Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign.
Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.
And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.
The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it.
What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force.
This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.
Mine is Greenland, Panama and Canada, you are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe, he is Taiwan and the China Sea.
At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called “diplomatic realism.”
So we are alone. But the talk that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated.
Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.
The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.
Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that it holds, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation.
This will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself by a coalition of only the willing countries, with of course the United Kingdom.
Second, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia and Minsk, we know what agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.
Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we must build the neglected European defence, to the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and scuttled since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books.
Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is to recognize that France has been right for decades in arguing for strategic autonomy.
It remains to be built. It will be necessary to invest massively, to strengthen the European Defence Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, to harmonize weapons and munitions systems, to accelerate the entry into the Union of Ukraine, which is today the leading European army, to rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, to relaunch the anti-missile shield and satellite programs.
The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And much more will be needed.
Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be implemented. For good.
But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament.
We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left.
They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defence.
They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin.
Peace for the collaborators who have refused any aid to the Ukrainians for three years.
Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.
Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical.
The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks.
But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.
The fate of Ukraine is being played out in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy, and here on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means for their common defense, and to make Europe the power that it once was in history and that it hesitates to become again.
Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost.
The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.
Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”

-Claude Malhuret speaking to the French Senate Tuesday, March 4 2025. 

Is Trump a Russian asset?

Donald Trump and Russian Financial Connections: A Historical Analysis

---

Introduction

This report examines the historical connections between Donald Trump and Russian financial entities, organized crime, and intelligence networks. It focuses on key events dating back to the 1980s, including real estate transactions, business dealings, and financial struggles, along with subsequent allegations of money laundering and political influence. Additionally, it considers the question raised by various analysts and intelligence experts: Was Donald Trump recruited by the KGB in or before 1987?

---

Trump's Initial Russian Ties: The 1980s and 1990s

1984: Trump Real Estate and Russian Money Laundering Allegations

In 1984, David Bogatin, a Russian mobster and convicted gasoline bootlegger, purchased five condominiums in Trump Tower for approximately $6 million. The U.S. government later seized these properties, citing them as part of a money-laundering operation for the Russian mafia.

• Source: New Republic

1987: Trump’s Moscow Visit and Potential KGB Influence

In 1987, Trump and his then-wife, Ivana, visited Moscow at the invitation of Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin. The trip was fully funded by Soviet officials who were interested in "potential business collaborations" with Trump.

Shortly after his return, Trump placed full-page ads in major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, where he criticized U.S. foreign policy. Some analysts have speculated that this marked the beginning of his alignment with Soviet interests.

• Source: Politico

Ivana Trump and Possible Intelligence Connections

While Ivana Trump was not Russian, she was born in Czechoslovakia, a Soviet-aligned state. Declassified intelligence files from the Czechoslovak Státní bezpečnost (StB), which had close ties to the KGB, indicate that her father, Miloš Zelníček, acted as an informant for the regime. The StB monitored Trump’s business activities and political aspirations as early as the 1970s and 1980s, forwarding reports to Soviet intelligence agencies.

Source: The Guardian

These revelations suggest that while Ivana Trump herself may not have been involved with intelligence services, her familial connections inadvertently provided channels through which information about Donald Trump reached Eastern Bloc intelligence agencies.

Felix Sater and Bayrock Group: Trump’s Russian Financial Links

Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with a criminal past, became a managing director of Bayrock Group LLC, a real estate conglomerate headquartered in Trump Tower. Bayrock partnered with Trump in 2005, bringing in foreign financing from sources tied to the former Soviet Union.

• Source: Foreign Policy

---

Trump’s Financial Struggles and Foreign Money

Trump's Atlantic City Casino Bankruptcies

Between 1991 and 2009, Trump's businesses filed for bankruptcy six times, primarily due to the financial instability of his Atlantic City casinos. The Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza, and Trump Castle all required debt restructuring.

• Source: Wikipedia
  (Note: Wikipedia compiles information from multiple sources, including legal documents, financial records, and major news outlets. While it can be edited by users, Wikipedia's rigorous citation requirements and editorial oversight ensure that well-sourced information is reliable. In this case, the financial history of Trump is drawn from court filings and financial disclosures.)

Banking Challenges and Alternative Financing

After his casino bankruptcies, Trump found it difficult to secure loans from major U.S. banks. He instead turned to Deutsche Bank, which continued to provide substantial loans for his projects, despite his history of defaults.

• Source: WNYC Studios

Russian Financial Involvement

Reports suggest that Russian entities may have provided financing for Trump’s ventures. In a 2017 interview, Eric Trump allegedly stated, "We don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia."

• Source: Vanity Fair

---

Deutsche Bank's Internal Investigation

Was Trump’s Debt Guaranteed by Russia?

Deutsche Bank conducted an internal review to determine whether loans made to Trump were backed by Russian government guarantees. However, the findings of this investigation have not been publicly disclosed.

In May 2017, Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee requested information from Deutsche Bank regarding these alleged guarantees. The bank declined to provide a substantive response.

• Source: The Guardian

Suspicious Activity Reports and Allegations of Money Laundering

In 2019, Deutsche Bank’s anti–money laundering specialists reportedly recommended filing suspicious activity reports regarding transactions involving Trump and Jared Kushner. However, these recommendations were allegedly ignored by senior bank executives.

• Source: New York Times

Analysis of Deutsche Bank's Actions

• The lack of disclosure raises significant questions. If Deutsche Bank had found no connection to Russian-backed loans, transparency would have been the logical step.
• Rejecting internal compliance officers' money-laundering reports is highly unusual, especially given the bank’s previous scandals.
• Deutsche Bank has a documented history of laundering money for Russian oligarchs, having paid a $630 million fine for laundering $10 billion in Russian funds.
  • Source: BBC
• Trump continued to receive loans from Deutsche Bank even after multiple defaults, raising concerns about why a bank would repeatedly finance someone with such a poor credit history.
  • Source: New York Times

While this does not definitively prove Russian backing, the pattern of behavior from both Deutsche Bank and Trump’s financial dealings suggests something was being hidden.


The 1st part of the attached video covers the question "Is Trump a Russian asset?" with the senator concluding
That Trump has....

• Expressed from the Oval Office, Russian propaganda that Ukraine started the War.
• That Zelenskyy is a dictator
• Gave away key things on the negotiation table before negotiations even started.
• Said that US would oppose any membership of NATO for Ukraine.
• Cut off Arms shipments to Ukraine, completely undermining their ability against a much bigger aggressor.
• Undermined the partnership with Europe which has been essential to security for the last 80 years. Which was a major goal of Putin's.
• Done everything possible to discredit and demean  Zelenskyy on the international stage along with the shameful press conference where he teamed up with the Vice President to attack Zelenskyy 

 "What else could a Russian asset actually possibly do that Trump hasn't yet done"

---

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s financial dealings, particularly in real estate, have long been intertwined with Russian entities. The 1980s saw the beginning of his connections with Soviet officials, while the 1990s and early 2000s saw Russian oligarchs and organized crime figures investing in Trump properties. After his financial troubles in Atlantic City, Trump turned to Deutsche Bank and other foreign sources for funding, raising concerns over Russian involvement in his business empire.

Investigations into Trump’s financial ties remain inconclusive, with Deutsche Bank’s internal probe never publicly revealing whether Russian guarantees were involved. However, the connections between Trump’s business operations and Russian financial actors remain a subject of scrutiny and debate.

---

End of Report

The Effects of 15 Years of Tory Government and Economic Costs of Brexit and COVID-19 on the UK

 

The Effects of 15 Years of Tory Government and Economic Costs of Brexit and COVID-19 on the UK

1. Economic Impact of COVID-19

Government Borrowing and Debt: The UK government borrowed approximately £304 billion during the 2020/21 financial year to manage the economic fallout from the pandemic. This raised the national debt to around £2.22 trillion (106% of GDP) by March 2021.

Fraud, Error, and Procurement Waste: A significant portion of the COVID-19 expenditure was lost to mismanagement:

• Fraud and Error in Schemes: Approximately £4.5 billion was lost across schemes like the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and Eat Out to Help Out. Of this, £1.1 billion has been recovered.

• Bounce Back Loan Scheme: Over £7 billion was at risk due to fraud and credit risks.

• Procurement Issues: The Department of Health and Social Care wrote off £14.9 billion on unusable PPE, part of the £48.1 billion spent on contracts.

In total, an estimated £26.4 billion was wasted on fraud, error, and poorly managed procurement.

2. Economic Costs of Brexit

Long-Term Productivity Losses: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that Brexit will reduce the UK's long-term productivity by 4% compared to remaining in the EU.

Cumulative Financial Costs:

• By 2023, Brexit had reduced the UK's Gross Value Added (GVA) by approximately £140 billion.

• Projections suggest a cumulative cost of £311 billion by 2035 due to diminished trade, reduced investment, and weaker productivity.

Sectoral Impacts:

• Trade: Exports and imports are forecast to be around 15% lower in the long term.

• Investment: Business investment could have been 25% higher without Brexit-related uncertainty.

• Labour Market: Post-Brexit immigration rules have led to labour shortages in transport, hospitality, and retail sectors, increasing operational costs and reducing output.

3. Key Comparisons and Overlapping Effects

While COVID-19’s economic impact was immediate and unprecedented, Brexit’s costs are more sustained and systemic. Both events significantly increased the UK’s debt and reduced economic potential:

• COVID-19’s response measures added over £300 billion to public debt, with notable inefficiencies in spending.

• Brexit’s economic adjustments are expected to reduce long-term GDP by up to 4%, costing hundreds of billions over the coming decades.

4. Challenges for Any Future Government

Any incoming government will face a monumental task in addressing the combined economic fallout of Brexit and COVID-19. Key priorities include:

• Fiscal Reforms: Reducing waste, improving procurement practices, and targeting resources effectively to rebuild public trust.

• Economic Stimulus: Encouraging investment, addressing trade deficits, and fostering productivity growth to offset long-term damage.

• Labour Market Adjustments: Tackling post-Brexit labour shortages through strategic immigration policies and workforce development.

• Long-Term Planning: Addressing the root causes of economic stagnation with forward-thinking policies across multiple sectors.

Clearing up these issues will likely require difficult decisions around taxation, spending cuts, and targeted investments to balance economic recovery with fiscal responsibility.

Conclusion

The combined impact of 15 years of Tory government, Brexit, and COVID-19 has placed substantial strain on the UK’s economy, manifesting in increased debt, reduced trade, weakened productivity, and ongoing labour market challenges. Enhanced oversight and strategic economic planning are essential to mitigate further losses and rebuild economic resilience.

Ukraine Invasion: What do they say about cornering a rat?

Its doubtful now that Putin can retreat from Ukraine without looking weak - which could result in Putin either being killed or overthrown. (Although that may already be on the cards)

He can't afford to stay in Ukraine and get bogged down in a bloody and expensive war.

 

He can drop a Nuclear tactical weapon on Ukraine to force them to surrender - this would clearly risk igniting WWIII.

 

Or would it?

 

Would NATO really risk all out nuclear war if a tactical short range nuclear weapon was used with limited killing field of around 1km?

 

Its doubtful, again Putin knows this and his back is to the wall with not many options left. 

 

With all the sanctions, Putin now has limited time to achieve his aims. Tactical battlefield weapons have always been part of Russian battle plans. With NATO its last resort defense.

 

However, should that option be used NATO would have to respond or they may as well pack up and let Russia take over the world. 

 

Lets hope that particular decision is never needed.

 

Ukraine Invasion: Turkey to implement pact limiting Russian warships to access to the Black Sea

 Turkey to implement pact limiting Russian warships to access to the Black Sea

It wouldn't be just Russian it would be both Russian and Ukraine warships however as Ukraine has very limited naval vessels its unlikely they would be going through the straights.

Turkey is a member of NATO could be issues there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles

Turkey to implement pact limiting Russian warships to Black Sea

https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280166981

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/naval-arms-control-1936.htm

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/27/turkey-says-may-block-russian-warships-a76634

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-02-26/card/uDQCa9dMZsNGZLQsfWYg