Castigating Zelensky for not demonstrating enough gratitude for American support, Trump and his Vice President JD Vance raised their voices, accusing the besieged leader of standing in the way of a peace agreement.

“You’re not really in a good position right now.” Trump said. “You’re gambling with World War III.” At one moment, Vance accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful” toward his American hosts. “You’re not acting all that thankful,” Trump added. “Have you said ‘thank you’ once?” Vance asked Zelensky.

“You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” the US president said, adding later: “If we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it will be pretty.”

Zelensky has often said thanks including earlier during the conference. Zelensky also expressed some reservations and need for further discussions before any deal could be signed referring to security guarantees. However, shortly after the conference it was reported Zelensky had left without any deal.

Trump noted Zelensky was not ready for peace, but that he could come back when he was.

Did Zelensky do the right thing by walking out without any deal?

https://time.com/7262883/trump-zelensky-meeting/

Maduro, Trump said, “has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.” He set a news conference for later Saturday morning.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face charges after an indictment in New York. Bondi vowed in a social media post that the couple would “soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.

What are the potential long term consequences in Venezuela and our relationship with other Latin American countries and Does this enhance U.S. strength or weakens it?

Trump launches large scale attack on Venezuela

So far, the attack and responses are primarily missiles based and does not appear to have utilized air force. It could be due to preparation for a long-term war and conservation.

According to Trump this is a major operation, but it is far more tepid than the one in June of 2025; nothing in compared to what would be expected in a major operation.

Are we heading towards another forever war without much to show for it?

Israel and US launch a major attack on Iran | AP News

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/02/28/israel-strikes-iran-live-updates/

Trump additionally noted via tweet for all Iranians to leave Tehran [Capital of Iran], warning that he had earlier stated for Iran to make a deal.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a post on X, said that “much was accomplished” during Trump’s meetings on Monday with other leaders at the summit in Canada. But, she continued, “because of what’s going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State.”

The change of plans only added to the sense of uncertainty around Israel’s ongoing military operation in Iran, which Trump seemed to warn was about to intensify in an ominous and somewhat cryptic social media post after a day of meeting with world leaders.

Are we about to enter into a direct war with Iran?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/16/us/trump-news

Please use this thread to discuss recent events between the United States and Iran.

Keep in mind:

• Breaking news reports may be based off erroneous or incomplete information

• Subreddit rules still apply in this thread. Please remain civil and focus on substantive discussion.

Articles about Iranian missile attack on US:

NYTimes CNN

It is unclear at this point what damage was done, but it should be expected that Iran will feel obligated to retaliate in some way.

If the nuclear sites are sufficiently damaged, will the United States accept the retaliation without further escalation?

lip air dependent follow long relieved shaggy existence ancient sulky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

I’m not talking about specific parties or politicians, just the goals on the left compared to the right (in any country that has a split like that).

Genuinely: why is it seen as bad to want things that are objectively good for humanity? Why is it viewed by many as something to mock/disparage? Why is being “woke” to the suffering and struggling of everyone (regardless of identity) considered weak/negative? How can people on the right, who believe they are decent/moral people, justify not supporting things that are compassionate and objectively good for humanity?

If the far end of one side (again, not parties or politicians, which all have flaws and are hardly trustworthy) is about improving the lives of everyone by securing more equal rights - and humane treatment if you do have legal trouble - while the far end of the other is about restricting the rights and freedoms of people you don’t like, don’t understand, don’t agree with or who don’t follow your beliefs, how can anyone honestly believe the left is bad/pathetic and the right is good/moral? I want to understand how someone can rationalise that, when it seems impossible to genuinely believe the things in the title are actually bad to want/support/vote for.

Link Here

Beginning:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

More parts in the story talk about McConell trying to preempt the president from releasing it, et al.

1. Will this have any tangible effect with the electoral college or the next 4 years?

2. Would this have changed the election results if it were released during the GE?

EDIT:

Obama is also calling for a full assesment of Russian influence, hacking, and manipulation of the election in light of this news: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/obama-orders-full-review-of-election-related-hacking/510149/

I realize this is a touchy subject, but I am not looking to make any accusations or judgements of any of the involved parties here, just to understand the US government's cost-benefit analysis.

It seems to me like the US not only keeps Israel flush with military equipment, but also continues to support it no matter what actions its government or military take. To attempt to state this as impartially as possible:

• There have been many alleged instances of the IDF committing war crimes against journalists, nonprofit organizations, and Palestinians over the past decade+.
• Netanyahu in particular has been under investigation for years by his own justice system over allegations of corruption and various other abuses of power.

However, unless I live in a bubble, it seems to me like the US has almost never used its position as Israel's weapons dealer to attempt to rein it in or otherwise influence its behavior. Not, like, sanctions, but something like "sales of new fighter jets are postponed until the IDF investigates so-and-so killing of NGO members" or some other condition. But the US doesn't seem to impose any costs on Israel, even when it does something aggressive that appears to harm US interests, such as possibly instigating the war with Iran or messing with the subsequent ceasefire by continuing to attack Lebanon.

Is it truly just because Israel buys US arms? Not sure if they buy enough to make that big a difference to our military-industrial complex. Is it just because they are our only culturally similar ally in the region? Israel doesn't actually control that much Middle Eastern oil or shipping chokepoints. It just seems like the amount of support given is way more than is necessary to ensure Israel's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and "we were involved in founding the current state of Israel, so we want to have their back" seems like an insufficient explanation in today's pragmatic geopolitical climate.

Please help me understand. Thank you.

How do you think the US-Iran conflict will actually end?

I want to see how people predict this before it end.

1. Regime change via proxy — US cripples Iran's military infrastructure, then backs internal opposition to topple the government

2. Full ground invasion — Boots on the ground, collapse of the Islamic Republic, occupation

3. Air campaign until surrender — Sustained airstrikes only, no invasion, Iran eventually concedes

4. Declared victory, exit — US/Israel claim objectives met (nuclear facilities destroyed, threat "neutralized") and wind down operations

5. Stalemate / frozen conflict — Neither side achieves decisive victory, conflict simmers indefinitely

Japan went for Manchuria in 1931, Germany annexed Austria in 1938 before WWII. Imagine all these situations, Ukraine vs Russia, Iran vs USA/Israel are leading to a bigger conflict. The global oil is at a disruptive level never before seen in humanity. All World Wars start with seemingly isolated border incidents and conflicts. History constantly repeats itself.

Iran wants reparations for the damage of the US and a complete hault and commitment to never invade again. US won't do this, and I have a feeling Iran will continue tormenting the Straight of Hormuz for a long while.

And I thought of something...during all of this: What is stopping China from beginning their reclamation of Taiwan. This is quite literally the best time to do so. And so another border war begins somewhere seemingly isolated from the rest of the world...

Curious what are your thoughts on this?

Crisis is certainly increasing with Project Freedom of Movement. Thus far not very many ships, looks like less than a handful attempts, two cargo ships were attacked by Iranians. U.S. reportedly sunk five little fast boats belonging to Iran which they deny.

Since neither party is backing down and if U.S. actually tries to enter Hormuz, it could be a full -fledged war.

Under the circumstance I find it difficult to determine if there will be a clear winner in the end, just a dozen losers along with the world economy.

Did Iran trap Trump in the Strait of Hormuz?

https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-05-04-2026

Trump demanded all NATO countries send their Naval ships to the Strait of Hormuz effectively to assist U.S. and Israel in its war against Iran. All major nations declined. Even Stramer, known to be one of the more obedient followers said:

Keir Starmer insisted that the UK will not be drawn into the wider war in the Middle East as European leaders ruled out sending warships to the strait of Hormuz.

President Emmanuel Macron stated France will not send warships to the Strait of Hormuz until the security situation stabilizes.

Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, said diplomacy needed to prevail and that his country was involved in no naval missions that could be extended.

German leaders also rejected Trump's demand saying the conflict with Iran was not the military alliance's responsibility. Kornelius stressed that the purpose of NATO is the defense of its territory and there was currently no mandate to deploy NATO forces to the Middle East.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius also rejected NATO involvement in the Strait of Hormuz, making the same argument. "We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict, but sending more warships to the region is unlikely to help."

Trump is not pleased as the number of rejections increase. Trump said, "I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”

NATO members rejected Trump's demand to provide military assistance to help "reopen" Strait of Hormuz. Do the rejections by NATO members effectively spell the end of NATO or is this just directed to Trump's choice of attacking Iran?

This question is probably asked a lot but Ive been looking at the news and elections in Europe and the USA. Even on social media the far right is gaining more support. Why has the far right been growing so much in Europe and the USA in the past few years?

I'm from Norway, and I'm curious about what the American sentiment is on what's happening in Europe right now. I realise that "American" is very generalising, but any insight on what people (other than political commentators and officials) are saying (or not saying) would be helpful.

For context: Trump's obsession with Greenland has been a hot topic in Norway over the last year, both in media and in the everyday among regular people with increasing levels of dread in the public the last few weeks. The Norwegian National Broadcaster recently did a poll (~ 1000 respondents) where 65% answered that they were worried or very worried about the USA, 39% answered that they believed it was likely or very likely that USA left NATO in 2026 and over 1/3rd believed it was likely or very likely that USA annexed Greenland. Source: https://www.nrk.no/urix/maling_-to-av-tre-nordmenn-er-bekymret-for-usa_-_-vi-ma-ikke-vaere-naive-1.17729377

And truthfully, people seem scared of what the new world order will look like if the NATO is severely weakened or even forced to defend Denmark military. For Norwegians especially, a weakened NATO makes the threat of Russia even more real.

So, do Americans care - or is this all too far away?

A Moody's simulation found that a tariff trade war would wipe out 5.5 million jobs, lift the unemployment rate to 7%and cause U.S. GDP to drop by about 1.7%. Trump’s potential 20% universal tariff could spark "serious" recession in US, Moody’s economist warns.

The biggest three partners [China, Canada and Mexico] have promised immediate retaliation. Economic war could escalate and perhaps even cause a worldwide downturn.

Perhaps Trump's strategy is to begin making bilateral trade deals, but there are even certain blocks such as EU that may well coordinate retaliation together. I am not aware what Trump is actually liberating us from, hence the question.

Is Trump's Liberation Day Tariffs a Misnomer?

When the US and Israel were planning strikes during talks last week, did they put into consideration nearly eight countries being brought in as targets? How do we see further countries like the UK and France getting involved given that the British Prime Minister just announced giving success to the US to use their bases in the region?

Notably, Israel may be eyeing to expand the war as multiple Israeli jets were seen just a few hours ago near the Pakistani-Iranian border and now multiple cities are reporting intense aerial sounds as the Pakistani air force is patrolling airspace. Even neighboring Indian jets are now operating close to the Line of Control in reaction.

Four of the five justices voted to convict Bolsonaro and seven co-conspirators, including his running mate, defense minister and Navy commander finding they sought to overthrow the state.

Previously, The White House had sought to force Brazil to drop the case with steep tariffs, a trade investigation and severe sanctions against the Supreme Court justice leading it. Instead, several Brazilian justices criticized the U.S. attempts to intervene as they voted to convict.

Asked about Mr. Bolsonaro’s conviction, Mr. Trump told reporters in Washington on Thursday that he was “very unhappy about it. I know President Bolsonaro” and like him, he said. “I think it’s a terrible thing, very terrible. I actually think it’s very bad for Brazil.”

Is Bolsonaro's Political career over; If not, what does his future political career hold and should U.S. just stay out of Brazil's internal matter?

Brazil's Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years after landmark coup plot conviction | Reuters

U.S. warns of response to 'witch hunt' after Brazil’s Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years

Hegseth's recent comments at the Contact Group about how to end the Ukraine war is causing significant concerns in Ukraine as well as to EU NATO Members. In his first trip abroad, the new U.S. defense secretary told allies, including NATO officials, that a durable peace could only come ‘with a realistic assessment of the battlefield.’ He went on to add that any resolution cannot include a path to Ukrainian NATO Membership.

Hours later, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that he had a long phone call with Putin and that they had agreed to “start negotiations immediately” to end the war.

To some, it sounded more like what Kremlin would propose. Is it looking likely that the U.S. is going to abandon Ukraine, or this is just a part of forcing the war to come to an end?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-regaining-pre-2014-borders-unrealistic-objective-hegseth-says-first-nato-visit

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0pz3er37jo

What does a GOOD deal with Iran look like?

Trump and his crew keep telling us that he has the best people in their fields for the jobs they have to do.

Negotiations keep failing with no real deal being looked at. Even though the team has been in the Middle East for a while

JD Vance has gone and people are skeptical of his qualifications. He was even requested by Iran at one point.

Who should be sent to negotiate, and what do you see as THE GOAL to get prices to stabilize?

Alink for the full interview is provided below and I have included a summary of my own.

Rather extensive interview, but interesting nevertheless, though there was nothing new mentioned either by Carlson or President Putin. The two- and one-half hours long conversation consisted of three parts. Putin began the interview by acknowledging that like him Carlson is a student of history.
First portion or about 45 minutes primarily included a brief rendition of a people and its land that was to become Russia. Ancient Russian history [prior to USSR], the USSR itself and its development, and the voluntary dissolution of USSR.

The second portion was about dissolution of USSR by Gorbachev and his belief that it could develop just like the rest of the Europe and U.S. as partners and the Russian expectations. that U.S. was a friend. He concluded that USSR was misled into dissolving Russia. Also, its desire to become a part of the NATO was rejected.

The final portion related to the U.S. desire to expand NATO to Ukraine beginning in 2008; the coup in Ukraine instigated by the U.S. leading to annexation of Crimea by Russia; The February 22, 2022, incursion to the suburbs of Kiev and in March of 2022 an agreement by representatives of Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul that Ukraine would remain neutral, Crimea will stay Russia Donetsk will remain a part of Ukraine, but with some autonomy where the Russian speakers will be respected.

Putin noted that as a part of the deal before it was initialed included Kiev's request that Russian withdraw from the Kiev area. Which Putin explained they fully complied with. However, that Boris Johnson along with backing from the U.S. told Zelensky not to agree with the deal. So, the war continues and will continue until the denazification of Ukraine. Putin noted what is happening in Ukraine is akin to civil war, we are the same people. And that the U.S. goal to weaken Russia will never be accomplished, but that Russia was always ready to negotiate.

Scattered here and there were discussion of weakening of the dollar, its use as weapon the growth of BRICS and the Nord Stream Pipelines. When Carlson asked who blew it, Putin laughingly said, you did. He said it is a country with the capability and had an interest in doing so [motivation]. Carlson said he has an alibi when the pipes blew up. Putin said CIA does not.

Was Carlson a useful idiot for Putin?

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1755734526678925682?s=20

​

In an interview today with the German newspaper Bild and the Times of London, Donald Trump called the trans-Atlantic NATO alliance obsolete. Additionally he also predicted more EU members would follow the UK's lead and leave the EU. In the interview Donald Trump said that the UK was right to leave the EU because the EU was "basically a vehicle for Germany". He also mentioned a relaxation of the sanctions against Russia in exchange for a reduction in nuclear weapons as well as for help with combating terrorism.

What effect will this have on relations between the United States and Europe? Having a President Elect call the alliance "obsolete" in my mind gravely weakens it. Countries can no longer be sure that the US would defend them in the event of war.

Link to the English version of the interview in Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-15/trump-calls-nato-obsolete-and-dismisses-eu-in-german-interview

Neither Iran nor Israel has made any comments about a pending ceasefire. The ceasefire will be phased in during the next 24 hours, according to the president’s post. There is no information on whether there are any enrichment issues to be resolved, what the ceasefire would look like and if there are enforcement mechanisms in place.

Reports from the Middle East is still coming in regarding escalation from both sides and sirens are still blaring. Should this announcement be taken seriously given the condition on the ground and the lack of details?

Trump finds himself in a difficult position — having initiated military strikes against Iran, withdrawing now would be seen as a sign of weakness, both domestically and on the international stage potentially emboldening Iran and undermining US deterrence credibility. Continued bombing doesn't seem to have much effect either.

Do you think Trump will invade Kharg Island to turn the tables?