Though nationalists, Trump and Putin do not understand nationalism

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are notorious nationalists, and corrosively critical of the world order based on universal rules and norms. But quite ironically, they do not understand nationalism. They impose self-righteous greed on others under the name of nationalism, while dismissing the pressured or attacked nations’ quest of sovereignty and national pride. That is witnessed in Trump’s Donroe Doctrine and Putin’s Russkiy Mir ideology.

Now, ley me talk about Trump’s Western Hemisphere policy and trans-Atlantic disputes. As soon as reinaugurated, Trump declared to annex Greenland and Canada, and regain the ownership of Panama Canal, which startled the global community and spurred vehement criticism from NATO allies. Also, he argued that Ukraine concede its territory for Russia to end the war quickly, completely dismissing the principle of territorial integrity. In all cases, Trump treats national territory and sovereignty like transaction of real estate property.

I. Trump’s self-righteous nationalism and real estate instinct in clash with nationalism abroad
(1) Greenland:
Trump did not care about the long path of history in which indigenous people struggle against Denmark to win their autonomy. How would they accept sudden change of their status imposed by an erratic alien leader? Let me review its history. Since Erik the Red came to Greenland around 980, Norsemen found their settlements in Greenland. But as the Little Ice Age started in the 14th century, those settlements were gradually abandoned. Europeans recolonized Greenland after Denmark-Norway expedition in the 17th and the 18th century. After Denmark split from Norway during the Napoleonic War, Greenland became Danish territory. Since then, indigenous Innuits have struggled for their autonomy against Denmark. One of the most noticeable issues is the 1951 defense agreement with the United States, which forced local Innuits to leave their traditional hunting ground to expand the Thule base for the USAF.

The milestone of the postwar Danish rule in Greenland is the Constitutional Act in 1953, which aims at decolonization through integration. Greenland became a country within the Danish realm. Since then, rapid modernization, economic development, and Danification were pursued in the 1950s and the 60s. In the 1970s, further assimilation pressure was imposed on native Greenlanders. In the referendum about EEC membership in 1972, Greenland was forced to join despite opposition from its residents. They were concerned with negative impacts on their fishing rights and the cession of their political decision-making to the Danish government and Eurocrats in Brussels.

Increased frustration led indigenous Greenlanders to protest the Danish rule and EEC membership. Greenland and Denmark had lengthy talks about the autonomy and EC membership since 1975 through the Home Rule Commission. They were approved to leave the EC after a new referendum in 1982. Denmark went furthermore to ratify the Indigesous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 at the UN level in 1996 to recognize cultural identity, socio-ecological rights, and political autonomy. (1)

Trump does not give even the slightest consideration to such historical backgrounds. As shown in his notorious phrase, “drill baby drill”, socio-ecological rights of indigenous people are none of his interest. Also, they were forced relocate their habitats for the USAF base in the past. Considering their historical grudge, Trump’s territorial claim could simply provoke anti-American sentiments among them. It seems that small nations and ethnic minorities are virtually nonexistent in his geopolitics.

(2) Canada:
Likewise, Trump showed no interest in Canada’s quest for distinct national identity both from Britain and America in history. In response to Trump’s outrageous pressure that Canada be merged with the United States to resolve the tariff war and to strengthen its national security, Prime Minister Mark Carney replied clearly “Canada is not for sale” like the White House and the Buckingham Palace. (2) In Trump’s real estate mindsets, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are no serious issues of concerns. Therefore, let me mention Canada’s historical pursuit of self-rule and diplomatic independence.

First, I talk about Canada’s path to independence from Britain. It began when the UK parliament adopted the British North America Act in 1867, to found a staunch confederation of Canada in view of the rise of America after the Civil War. It was Britain’s imperative to stop another Boston Tea Party in its white dominions to foster common imperial foreign policy. However, dominions became increasingly self-aware through their contribution to the victory in World War I. One of the noticeable examples is Canada’s concern with the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The rise of Japan after the war was changing global balance of power so much, which made the United States, and also Canada, critically alarmed with that. As a result, Britain was forced to repeal the alliance with Japan. With the Statue of Westminster in 1931, Canada was approved to become an independent country within the British Commonwealth. (3)

As Canada was gaining equal status with Britain gradually, trade relations with the United States was splitting the nation toward the 20th century. Conservatives were pro-British and protectionist, while Liberals were pro-American and free trader. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 strained bilateral relations through tariffs hikes, which pushed Canada to join the British imperial trade block. Though the relationship with the United States improved after it joined the Allied Forces in World War II, Canada continually had complicated relations with the big neighbor in the south. As British influence faded and American influence grew after the war, Canada became more conscious of its distinct identity.

Socio-culturally, Canada adopts bilingualism of English and French and multiculturalism. In domestic politics, American styled revolution and republicanism were not embraced, which led to less inclination to individualism and market economy, and more to governmental activism in this country. That has made Canada a welfare state with strict gun controls. These are completely at odds with MAGA dogmatism of anti-DEI, anti-welfare, and anti-gun control. Despite such historical backgrounds, Trump speaks about Canadian territory and sovereignty like real estate property and ownership, so lightheartedly.

In foreign policy, Canada places emphasis on soft power diplomacy, and focuses on foreign development aid for its political presence in the world, just as Nordic nations. That is starkly in contrast with hard power diplomacy of the United States and Britain. Though sharing Anglo Saxon culture, Canada has neither nuclear weapons nor power projection capabilities militarily. Therefore, this country use development aid as a strategic tool for trade and national security interests, (4) as well as for liberal values and humanitarianism. Like Nordic nations, Canada’s aid policies are founded on multilateralism, and conducted through close partnership with UN agencies. (5) Such strategic soft power diplomacy is something akin to Japan’s proactive pacifism. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech for a middle power coalition impressed the global public so strongly, but his idea was not suddenly made but deeply embedded in Canadian foreign and domestic policies for decades. Trump’s idea of annexing Canada is so impromptu and ridiculous.

(3) Panama:
In addition to Greenland and Canada, the annexation of the Panama Canal is the most critical strategic issue. Though Trump is wrong to claim that China controls the canal, its exit ports to the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are managed by a subsidy container terminal operator of Hong Kong based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. That raises critical concerns of Chinese BRI outreach among American geo-strategists. (6) However, current Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino is conservative and pro-American, and therefore, it is quite unlikely that he tilts toward China at the expense of America.

Professor Javier Corrales of Amherst University and Senior Lecturer James Loxton of Sydney University criticize Trump’s bulldozing counterproductive in their joint article, from the following points. For Panama, a sovereign canal is the centerpiece of national identity, and unilateral bullying would boost anti-Americanism precipitously vis-à-vis China, though Latin Americans do not necessarily view this country favorably. Also, such sentiments would nurture guerilla violence throughout Latin America as it happened in the 1960s and 70s since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, typically seen in Columbia and Nicaragua. For fear of that, the United States started the canal talk with Panama in the Nixon era, which was concluded by the Carter administration. Finally, the canal dispute could lead to the emergence of an anti-American coalition of leftists and military dictatorship like the Torrijos administration in 1968. (7)

While Trump is obsessed with Chinese influence on the Panama Canal so much, he did not tell Brazilian President-then Jair Bolsonaro to stop China’s BRI invested highway and railway projects through the rainforests in the Amazon, despite environmental and geopolitical concerns. His Donroe Doctrine is so contradictory. That shows us that this America First nationalist is not only ignorant of nationalism abroad. Actually, he is not seriously interested in stopping China, not to mention saving the environment.

(4) Ukraine:
His poor understanding of nationalism was also witnessed in Ukraine when this country was not fighting the war advantageously against Russia. Last year when Ukraine was fighting an uphill battle against Russia, Trump told Ukraine to cede occupied lands and limit the size of armed forces to end the war without solid security guarantee. That raised critical concerns on both sides of the Atlantic, and his whimsical greed for the Nobel Peace Prize or some kind of legacy is harshly questioned. (8) Despite Trump’s lack of insight about Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, European officials were fully aware that American involvement was indispensable to manage Russian threats in Ukraine and the whole of Europe. (9)

Ex-Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg criticized that Trump confused business and the war as the former Special Envoy for Ukraine of his administration. While Trump regards the pace process just as a swap of lands and personal relationship as the cornerstone of diplomacy, KGB-minded Putin has no room for embracing such a real estate way of deal making. (10) I quote him to show how absurd Trump’s approach is even from right-winger like Kellogg who is one of the founders of the America First Policy Institute.

What Putin really wants is not tiny pieces of territories in Donbas and Crimea, but the annihilation of the Ukrainian sovereignty and statehood, according to Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council. A sovereign and independent Ukraine symbolizes the enthrallment of the former Soviet bloc and the victory of Western liberalism, which struck Putin as the most catastrophic humiliation in his life. His political manipulation history in Ukraine traces back to so early as 2004 when his attempt to install pro-Russian puppet was sidelined in the Orange Revolution, a decade ago from the annexation of Crimea. (11) Actually, the Special Military Operation was intended to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately with pro-Russian puppet. However, Russia failed to seize Kyiv, and the war continues unexpectedly long for Putin. This is why Ukraine is fighting this war so unyieldingly.

(5) Iran:
Trump recklessly talked about regime change without noticing Iran’s long history of nationalism to resist invaders. He may have thought this job would be done with just a few drops of bomb to kill Shia and IRGC leaders, but Iran has a huge reserve of élites to fill vacancies. His success in Venezuela is not applicable. Also, Trump belittled Iran’s grit to fight against the enemy. Remember, they overcame the supply chain crisis of strategic materials including weapons during the Iran Iraq war, as typically seen in the case of F-14 fighter jets. They were brand new weapons that the Shah invested a huge amount of petro dollars, but ever since American engineers had withdrawn, they faced severe lack of equipment and components for operation. Iranians barely managed to revive those “Persian Cats” to defend their airspace from Saddam Hussein’s air force.

From domestic politics to foreign affairs, Trump’s self-claimed “art of the deal”, which is poker game styled bluff to pretend his upper handedness, resorts to various verbal abuse and shaming, negative labelling like “communist” and “woke”, coercive measures like National Guard deployment and use of force pressure, to gain what he wants, without persuading others. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations comments that such ways of bullying just boomeranged him as opponents and foreign nations take damaging retaliation, and Iran is no exception. Now, hardliners are invigorated in Tehran, and the Strait of Hormuz is the hostage of their “art of the deal”. (12)

Here again, Trump falls into real estate thinking as in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. He even mentioned his plan to annex the Strait of Hormuz, (13) but does not show the idea about how to defend there and ensure Persian Gulf security from Iranian drone attack in waves, which led to the defense pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. (14) Furthermore, Elliot Abrahams of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that US troops are considering relocating forward bases out of the Iranian drone range, as they are concentrated on the Gulf area for the War on Terror. (15) Trump may have been experienced in swapping lands in real estate business, but state territories are accompanied by nationalism, national security, and territorial integrity. He is even unlikely to be aware of the Atlantic Charter, which is the foundation of international rules and norms today.

II. Putin’s bogus vision of the Russkiy Mir and Ukraine
Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Putin published the notorious essay, “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in 2021. He assumes the Kievan Rus a rigidly monolithic ethnic entity, but they were a loose political federation, actually. Shortly after the publication of this controversial essay, Professor Andrew Wilson of the University College London, criticized that Putin confuses the Ancient Rus with Russian intentionally. Though Modern-day Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians descended from the Rus, they have had long history of separate nation building for centuries. In addition, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been influenced by the Renaissance and its subsequent religious movements, unlike isolated Russian Orthodox. From this point, I would argue that Ukraine’s tilt to the West is more natural than to Russia. Ukrainians have no reason to embrace Czar-worship among Russians.

Furthermore, Wilson flatly denies Putin’s claim of Russia’s historical territorial rights in Crimea, the annexation of which in 2014 was the precursor of the current war. This is a strategic location to control the Black Sea trade route to export agricultural products. Nevertheless, Putin mentions unproven history of Kievan Rus Prince Vladimir’s baptism in Crimea. Clearly, he wanted to impress spiritual value of Crimea to the Russian nation. The place of Prince Vladimir’s baptism is in dispute among historians, but Putin dismisses the fundamental point that Crimea was an alien land for both the Kievan Rus and modern-day Russians until colonized by Catherine the Great. Prior to her conquest, it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Armenians, etc. (16)

Even if Russians and Ukrainians shared common language and culture as Putin says, I would argue that that does not necessarily substantiate his one nation theory. Canada have sought autonomy, sovereignty, identity from Britain and America. Putin’s ambition to exterminate Ukraine and Trump’s eagerness to merge Canada sound like Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Austria. Those poorly grounded one nation claims come from megalomania. Above all, Putin is not interested in academic integrity. That essay is a showcase of KGB bred disinformation.

III. Trump and Putin compared in personal backgrounds
Both Trump and Putin live in information bubble, but that is not the only reason why they dismiss nationalism against a repressive foreign power in other countries, while boastfully claim self-righteous one for their own countries. After all, they satisfy their nationalism through bullying others. They are extremely zero-sum minded from their life time experience in real estate business and intelligence service respectively. For further understanding, I would like to mention personality of both leaders respectively.

Trump lacks intellectual competence to understand foreign history and global affairs. When he was young, he boasted to have graduated first in his class from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, (17) but that was flatly denied by late Professor William T. Kelley, as he revealed that Trump was the dumbest goddamn student he ever had. (18) Wharton is a prestigious school, but as his academic performance there was so poor, he is not bright enough. No wonder he is so hateful to established intellectuals. Some commentator misunderstood Trump got an MBA degree. No, his achievement was so bad at the bachelor’s level. MAGA people are fond of politically incorrect attack regarding race and gender. Then, let’s fight back in their politically incorrect manner to mock Trump’s poor brain. Go for it!

On the other hand, Putin is molded into KGB-brained. Soviet elites were grouped by two pillars, and the Communist Party lost power, but the Cheka survived the collapse of the union. Ideologically, they have converted from Marxism for workers of the world to authoritarian nationalism of secret police. Senator John McCain talked about Putin, “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B,” when he competed for the Republican Party nomination in the US presidential election in 2000. (19) His ideological opponent ex-Lieutenant General Kellogg, who believes in America First, firmly agrees with him about this. Anyone seriously committed to national security shares common views regardless of political position, but does Trump really understand this?

Ironically, Putin is prosecuted by the ICC now, which hindered him from attending the BRICS summit in South Africa and Brazil, though he focused on international law and trade at Leningrad State University (St Petersburg State University today), an archrival to Moscow State University. His KGB training was more influential in shaping his thoughts than his college education.

IV. Exploitative or predatory nationalism of Trump and Putin
Despite some differences in individual backgrounds, Trump and Putin are quite like-minded as they try to impose their tribalistic views on others by all means. They do not see the world from intellectual modesty, but from exploitative or predatory nationalism. They want to seize what they want whether legitimately or illegitimately. They do not care about moral and logical contradictions in what they claim. That leads them to repress liberal nationalists in other nations. Liberal nationalism rises from the quest for autonomy and freedom as seen in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. That is not an ideology of hate, which is favored among MAGA mobs and other Western right-wingers. It is not exploitative and predatory.

Leaders like Trump and Putin are highly conscious of the great power status of their countries so much that they are bulldozing the world with their exploitative and predatory greed, but not interested in providing global public goods or fulfilling responsibility to the world in accordance with their national power. Meanwhile, some middle power leaders like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada stand against them with liberal nationalism for their own countries and liberal internationalism for the global community.

Real national defense capability matters rather than the GDP ratio of spending

Ever since the Cold War, the United States has been urging its allies to increase defense spending for burden sharing, whether it acts as the world policeman or America First. However, I have always wondered why people talk about the amount of money to be spent so much, while hardly paying attention to how it is spent and implemented. A discrepancy in defense strategy and procurement could weaken collective defense. Quite recently, retired British Army General Richard Barrons raised a serious concern about this point that I have thought of for years.

Prior to mentioning his article in detail, we have to review the security environment of the world today. The latest NSS of the Trump administration emphasizes America First more than ever, and urges allies to assume more defense burdens. The paper even bluffs that the United States will withdraw from the alliance unless its members increase defense spending more drastically. As a result, liberal democracies in Europe and Asia are forced to pursue independent and multilateral security policy coordination, with the surge in defense budgets. In addition, wise spending must be considered to arrange such new security framework more effective. Both in Europe and Asia, President Donald Trump takes an Obama-style “offshore balancer” stance in Ukraine and Taiwan, while acting predatory in the Western Hemisphere, as seen typically in Venezuela and Greenland. He gives priority to making a deal of the mining business in Donbas rather than settling the territory and sovereignty issues with Russia. Also, in the recent Sino-Japanese conflict over Taiwan, he prioritized trade talks with China rather than geopolitical checks against its expansionism. Trump would be happy with a spending increase among allies and a decrease in the burden of American security commitments from his business acumen. It seems that he does not care about the use of increased spending, nor the division of roles with allies.

In view of such a global security environment, let me talk about ex-General Barrons’s commentary about the UK-German strategic discrepancy in defense spending objectives. As one of the leaders of the Strategic Defence Review 2025, he considered two points, which are the strategic requirements in deterrence and fighting, and financial capacity over the next decade (1). In addition, Britain, like other European nations, is forced to increase its military budget within such constraints in the face of Trump’s pressure. Therefore, wise spending for the properly focused objective is critical. While Britain is investing in technological innovation to resolve financial and personnel restrictions, Germany is building the strongest conventional army in Europe by overturning fiscal authority, and even by reintroducing conscription (2). Meanwhile, Britain’s military manpower is shrinking year by year despite its global commitment.

Contrary to Germany, Britain is pursuing tech-based military reform through combat lessons from Ukraine. Newly established digital targeting web will connect any UK troop sensors through AI-managed cloud to connect any of its weapons whether locally or globally (3). Such approaches require an innovative industrial base. The SDR 2025 even states “Defence also has <> at the heart of the UK’s economic strategy (4).” The Starmer administration’s TPD (Technology Prosperity Deal) with Trump’s America draws $350 billion in investments from U.S. firms into the UK's technology ecosystem, particularly in AI, quantum computing, and civil nuclear energy (5). Defence Secretary John Healey commented proudly that the deal would boost Britain’s leadership in defense, data and AI technology and as an ideal location for investment (6).

On the other hand, Britain`s ambitious scheme is not necessarily praise worthy. Barrons urges the British authority to fund and implement the project quickly, as Germany is building a conventional army rapidly. He recommends that Britain’s conceptual innovation and Germany’s efficient bureaucracy be combined to strengthen European defense capability. He criticizes the bureaucratic sectionalism of Whitehall for the delay. There is no denying that conventional plans are quicker to start than future-oriented ones. However, strategic rationality and efficiency are not the only reasons that determine the use of defense spending. The political culture of each country also matters. The primary focus of Germany’s national defense is urgent territorial defense in view of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For this objective, the Merz administration prioritized immediate military buildup, rather than future-oriented military reform. Furthermore, ethical hurdles make Germany cautious to use AI for military objectives, from the historical experience of authoritarian surveillance by Nazi and the Stasi. The German military prioritizes human control of technology and bans fully operational LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems) but admits human-overseen AI systems (7).

Such a discrepancy is found in the GCAP as well. While Britain was inclined to the command center version which is networked with ACPs (Autonomous Collaborative Platforms) or loyal wingman drones for multirole combat missions to increase combat mass and reduce damage risks, Japan prefers the manned version to replace aging F-2 immediately, which is equipped with more advanced sensors and networking technology than the F-35. Meanwhile, Italy is dissatisfied with the extremely high cost and tight restrictions for the technological transfer of the F-35. GCAP partners reached an agreement to fill these R&D objective gaps by making common manned aircraft and then, adapt them to the requirements of each air force (8).

However, the war in Ukraine has changed military tactics so drastically that the above discrepancies between Britain and Japan could shrink faster than expected. Following the New Year visit to Ise Shrine on January 5, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said that her cabinet would revise the National Security Documents by the Kishida administration to focus much more on drone and AI networking systems (9). Also, she said a stronger defense industry would be a new locomotive to boost the Japanese economy in this century. Those points somewhat similar to what is stated in Britain’s SDR 2025. That could make Japan’s position in the GCAP more in line with the UK. Unlike Germany, Japan has little ethical hurdles for AI weapons.

In an era of more self-interested America with the Donroe Doctrine, the target of increased defense spending has become more important than ever. Ex-General Barrons raises a critical question as he compares defense plan of Britain and Germany. We have to consider strategic rationality and political culture of partners in mini or multilateral policy coordination. Different priorities between Britan and Germany, and Britain and Japan, are just a tip of the iceberg among numerous cases. We tend to talk about the size of firepower and weapon of choice when we boost national defense, but don’t dismiss AI networking system and problems associated with that as it is emerging increasingly important. How should we spend increased defense budget? Each nation should think again.



Footnotes:
(1) "The UK and Germany should combine their strengths to address weaknesses in European defence"; Chatham House; 19 November, 2025

(2) "Germany votes to bring in voluntary military service programme for 18-year-olds"; BBC News; 6 December 2025

(3) "I wrote the UK defence review: Britain must accelerate reform if it is to help guarantee Ukraine’s security"; Chatham House; 25 September, 2025

(4) "The Strategic Defence Review 2025"; UK Government;8 July 2025

(5) "Trump, Starmer sign $350B tech deal to spur AI, nuclear energy and quantum computing"; New York Post; September 18, 2025

(6) "New strategic partnership to unlock billions and boost military AI and innovation"; UK Government Press Release;18 September 2025

(7) "Ethical and Operational"; German Council on Foreign Relations; November 09, 2022

"AI – its risks and possible side effects"; German Ethics Council; 4 April, 2023

"Chapter 8: Privacy and Security: German Perspectives, European Trends and Ethical Implications"; Ethical Issues in Covert, Security and Surveillance Research; 2021

(8) "The New Partnership among Italy,Japan and the UK on the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP)"; Istituto Affari Internazionali; 3 March, 2023

"Forget F-35, F-47 and FCAS: The GCAP Fighter Is Coming"; 1945; December 26, 2025

(9) Takaichi Security Revise; NHK World; January 5, 2026

Again, never nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize

At the plenary session of the House of Representatives on November 4th, Constitutional Democratic Party leader Yoshihiko Noda asked Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi a question about the endorsement of U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Takaichi cunningly avoided replying in detail. We must not allow this matter to be closed with such underhanded tactics. After all, Takaichi even went so far as to mimic President Trump's "eat cats and dogs" remark by using the "kick the deer" trope. Furthermore, in the LDP presidential election and the prime ministerial nomination elections for both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, no other candidate resorted to such Trump-style demagoguery. It appears Takaichi is strongly MAGA-brained.

Today, geopolitical paradigm shifts are frequently discussed in international politics, but if Trump were to win the Nobel Peace Prize, it could even lead to a paradigm shift in values, in which universal international norms are disregarded. The spread of right-wing populism today poses a threat to international security comparable to the intensifying interstate conflicts. Japan also nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize during the Abe era, but at the time, that president's childish displays of vanity were seen as a kind of joke. However, in his second term, it should be noted that Trump's personal desires have taken on a powerful tinge of madness.

In my previous post, I explained at length why I oppose nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. In this article, I would like to focus on the following three points.

First, the Trump administration's deployment of troops at home has been severely criticized by the public. Proper use of military forces is fundamental to national governance, and politicians who cannot do so are unlikely to achieve peace. In any country, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces must use military force in accordance with due process. In an attempt to exert political pressure on Democratic state and city governments, Trump has mobilized the National Guard across the country under the pretext of eradicating crime and undocumented immigrants. His overly heavy-handed tactics have led to growing criticism that the military is pointing its guns at its own citizens. President Trump with military command authority is like "a madman with a knife." As a result, courts across the United States have ruled that the deployment of the National Guard is illegal. A familiar story, even in Japan, is that NDLON (National Day Laborers Organizing Network) submitted numerous signatures to the Los Angeles Dodgers, this year's World Series champions, in protest of anti-immigration sentiment, calling for them to decline to meet with President Trump.

Second, President Trump has announced a plan to restart nuclear testing, a move that will set back long-standing momentum toward nuclear disarmament. Trump administration Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced that the resumption of testing would involve subcritical nuclear tests that do not involve a nuclear explosion. Although this may not be prohibited by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Russia shortly thereafter also announced a resumption of nuclear testing. There are concerns that other nuclear-weapon states, such as China, may follow suit. A president who claims America First and disregards international cooperation is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Third, we must consider the negative impact of President Trump's triumphant self-promotion once he were awarded. Given his brash and strong attention seeking character, Trump may use this as an opportunity to further his insistence on running for a third term. He is a man who has a penchant for pushing everything hard, even inciting the January 6th riot after losing the 2020 presidential election. Japan must not give a hand to the deterioration of democracy in crisis caused by such right-wing populism.

However, Takaichi is also said to be stubborn and unyielding in her own opinions. Given this, only very prominent politicians would be able to advise the current prime minister. Of the three issues mentioned above, there are former prime ministers with extensive knowledge of the first and second points. Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has made nuclear disarmament his lifework, and former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is known as a military geek. Up to now, neither of these former prime ministers is implicated in the "politics and money" scandals that contributed to the LDP's downturn. This may also be a strength of both of them.

As my primary focus is international politics, partisan politics and factional power politics within Nagatacho are secondary or thirdly interests for me. I view the destruction of the world order and the potential of paradigm shift in universal values and norms caused by the spread of right-wing populism as a serious threat to international security. From this standpoint, I urge that the issue of the Japanese government's nomination of U.S. President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize must not be dismissed.

The case against Prime Minister Takaichi’s flattery to MAGA

I was appalled when newly appointed Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi endorsed US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize at the last US-Japanese summit. I was preparing to post about another issue, but this incident was too critical for me to dismiss, and therefore, I've decided to postpone the previously planned post, and instead write about this unexpectedly emerging agenda.

I've always viewed Takaichi's behavior as dangerous, ever since the last LDP presidential election. The most desirable candidate for the LDP president was then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi. What sparked my growing view of Takaichi as a danger was her "deer kicking" remark. The remark was criticized as xenophobic, and she was forced to withdraw it. However, the look in Takaichi's eyes when she made that remark instinctively filled me with fear. It was suggesting as if she was determined to beat her rivals by arguing them down and agitating the public by all means, whether fairly or unfairly. In order to understand this, further expert analysis by psychologists is required. In any case, this kind of nonsensical demagogy in order to seize power is in line with Trump's "cats and dogs eating" remarks. Right-wing populism is really scary.

And shortly after taking office, the new LDP president even held coalition talks with Sanseito. Although this did not come true, it demonstrated the right-wing nature of the Takaichi administration. The endorsement of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is in line with these words and deeds. This is why I was appalled by Takaichi's flattery to MAGA at the last US-Japanese summit.

But does Trump deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? First, if we evaluate his achievements in the international community, the two major issues are the peace settlements in Gaza and Ukraine, but there is no sign of peacebuilding in either case. In Gaza, Trump made a big show of exchanging hostages between Israel and Hamas boastfully, but there is no prospect of Hamas disarming since then. The Biden administration has actually released more Israeli hostages. And in Ukraine, Russian attacks show no signs of abating. The good personal chemistry between President Vladimir Putin and President Trump is completely useless in promoting peace. In the Indo-Pakistani conflict, Pakistan is satisfied, but India is dissatisfied with Trump's mediation. Trump's other mediation efforts have not completely resolved the problem. He has not achieved any results worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

And what countries are nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? None of them are among the world's most highly accredited liberal democracies. First, Israel claims to be the only democratic nation in the Middle East, but the Netanyahu administration's attacks on Gaza have been internationally condemned for their humanitarian impact due to the disproportionate damage to civilians. Other supporters are all autocratic states or countries governed by right-wing populism. These include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Gabon, Rwanda, Argentina, Hungary, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal. Since the Meiji Restoration, Japan has striven to join the ranks of the world's civilized and first-class nations. Prime Minister Takaichi's declaration to recommend the Nobel Peace Prize runs counter to modern Japan's historical direction and places Japan in the "Shameless League."

The most troubling aspect of Trump's eligibility for the Nobel Peace Prize is that he does not know how to use armed forces properly. This hardly makes him a politician of peace. President Trump has mobilized the military in the domestic political struggle over undocumented immigration, but this disqualifies his leadership whether for war or peace. As the famous Latin proverb goes, "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war), there can be no peace with the misuse of military force. The Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to Democratic cities like Chicago and Portland, ostensibly to combat crime and undocumented immigration. Such deployments should not be possible on the president's unilateral orders. Furthermore, under the pretext of combating drugs, the administration has attacked Venezuelan ships without congressional approval. The Trump administration claims the right to kill anyone, anywhere, without reason, evidence, or accountability to Congress and the public. Such arguments have been harshly criticized by William Kristol, a leading conservative Never Trump commentator. In any case, such a president would easily resume nuclear testing without consideration to others. President Trump is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, not only from the perspective of international politics but also from the perspective of domestic politics. Why is Prime Minister Takaichi so willing to nominate such a person? If Japan's top leader has already fallen into MAGA-taste thinking and emotions, this is a serious problem.

However, since the Trump administration is based on the rock-solid MAGA base that harbors paranoia about globalization, it is conceivable that a certain degree of appeasement will be unavoidable in reaching a deal with them. Japanese liberals are so naïve as to dismiss this, and simply criticize "submission to America." Trump himself and those who wear bright red MAGA hats and vent their anti-globalist and anti-elite sentiment are truly difficult to deal with. In the tariff disputes launched by the Trump administration around the world, the Starmer administration in the UK managed to reach deals on relatively favorable terms. However, the reciprocal tariff was raised to 10%, which is higher than before.

Of particular note is the tech investment agreement and state guest treatment Trump received during his recent visit to the UK. This tech agreement has divided public opinion in the UK. The idea of boosting the tech industry by attracting investment from the US, supported by former Conservative Foreign Secretary William Hague, is clearly a bipartisan national policy. On the other hand, former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who served as Deputy Prime Minister in the Cameron coalition administration, expressed concern that the deal would not lead to support for domestic startups and would only turn the UK into a data center for major US tech companies. Despite this divided public opinion, it should not be forgotten that the Lee Jae-myung administration of South Korea also reached a tech investment deal during President Trump's last visit.

Furthermore, while Trump shamelessly flaunts his childish vanity over his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Starmer administration satisfied his vulgar greed with royal hospitality. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a Labour politician with a serious personality, would not have been a good match for President Trump, either in terms of ideology or personal chemistry. Therefore, it was quite likely that the series of negotiations and reception required considerable patience. However, it was in line with the fundamental direction of postwar British foreign policy, which emphasizes relations with the United States regardless of party affiliation or ideology. Even Britain, which is said to have reached a relatively favorable deal, had to proceed the talks like this. Other countries needed more struggling to strike a deal with the Trump administration, which views the world through idiosyncratic, and rigid perspective. Are Japanese liberals who criticize the "subservience to the United States" at the last summit so knowledgeable about the specific issues under negotiation? If so, they need to be more focused in their criticism. Whether you like or dislike Prime Minister Takaichi, such vague criticism is meaningless. It should be noted that former British Deputy Prime Minister Clegg, mentioned above, focused on specific points when he criticized the UK-US agreement. Above all, even with such a humble stance, I would like to reemphasize that Starmer does not endorse Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In any case, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination issue is intertwined with Takaichi's right-wing words and deeds, so the argument that the "glass ceiling" has been broken in Japanese politics is questionable. Right-wing politicians tend to be authoritarian, like autocrats. Under their rule, the glass ceilings based on gender, race, and so forth, are rarely broken. Reviewing history, the reign of Russia's enlightened despot, Catherine the Great, did not break any glass ceilings. As is well known, Catherine the Great's authoritarian domestic and foreign policies have served as a model for the Putin administration, which is invading Ukraine under the ideology of Russkiy Mir. It should also be noted that the current Kremlin is remarkably machismo-oriented, even by global standards. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to treat Prime Minister Takaichi as a female politician with any special consideration. The new prime minister's leadership should be examined objectively, focusing on her governance, ideology, and demagoguery techniques. Just like when discussing Catherine the Great or President Vladimir Putin.

The right-wing authoritarian Prime Minister Takaichi advocated a "work, work, work, work" political stance during the last LDP presidential election. However, as in the case of the Nobel Prize endorsement, if a leader is leading the country in a negative direction, it is preferable for them not to work too hard. Indeed, Prime Minister Hideki Tojo during World War II "worked, worked, worked, worked hard," which caused devastating damage to the Japanese nation and its people. While Trump may hold the position of President of the United States, he is essentially merely the president of MAGA. Therefore, such an unprincipled Nobel Prize recommendation seems like a challenge to anti-MAGA Americans. Currently, in Japan, as in European countries, there is discussion about the risk hedge from Trump's diplomacy by lowering Japan's security dependence on the United States. However, as a "Fragile Blossom" militarily, it is difficult to imagine Japan implementing sovereign and independent defense, and we cannot place excessive expectations on multilateral partnerships with Europe and Indo-Pacific countries without the United States. In this sense, cooperation with anti-MAGA Americans. could be seen as the strongest risk hedge against Trump's diplomacy. From this perspective, excessive prostration toward President Trump should be reconsidered.

At the last US-Japanese summit, the Abe legacy was repeatedly emphasized, and it seems that the Japanese government and media placed excessive emphasis on the personal chemistry between the two leaders. However, as the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe himself wrote in his memoir, that is completely unreliable. In fact, Trump has been ruthless in cutting off his loyalists, both in domestic and international politics. Among the leaders of powerful countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India had been in a good relationship with Trump during his first term, but that has deteriorated during his second term. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Starmer is striving to maintain a good relationship with the administration. In light of the trends in the U.S. and around the world described in this post, I hope Prime Minister Takaichi to withdraw her endorsement of the Nobel Peace Prize for President Trump.

The Trump chaos of “thin centered ideology”

Academics and policy watchers explore various information sources to find the key to understanding the unpredictability of the Trump administration. To understand specific policies, some publications and comments by cabinet members and other senior officials are helpful. However, it is President Donald Trump himself who makes the final decision about everything. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the driving force behind his offensive and sometimes self-destructing words and deeds.

The keyword to explain his populist thoughts and behavior is called “thin centered ideology” by a Dutch political scientist, Associate Professor Cas Mudde at the University of Georgia in the United States. I came across this word when I read one post about populism and Trump tariffs in "LSE British Politics and Policy Blog" (1). In that blog post, the notion of “thin centered ideology” is explained as an anti-elitist ideology without solid values and policies. Mudde’s theory draws much attention from Japanese academics, too. Professor Yoshihiko Takahashi at Hokkai Gakuen University comments that Populism is defined as a “thin-centered ideology” that sees society as ultimately divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, that is, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt élites", and this worldview asserts that politics should be an expression of the "general will" of the people. Interestingly, he mentions that populists ask the right questions about social contradictions, but respond with wrong answers (2). I would like to talk about Trump’s thin-centered ideology on three issues: trade, anti-Semitism, and Iran.

1. Trade
Since the first term, Trump tariffs have been the tool of bluff in his trade negotiations. But it is quite doubtful what he has achieved through such high-handed postures. Those tariff assaults seem to be reality shows to entertain frustrated MAGA voting base. In the first term, Trump tariffs broke NAFTA but similar regional free trade deal was made with Canada and Mexico. Similarly, Trump withdraw his tariff hike on China, once he reached an interim deal. In the second term, Trump’s trade policy turns more erratic, and instrumentalizes for broader political objectives such as imposing pressure on Canada and Latin American countries regarding deported immigrants and illegal drug flows. Historically, populist trade agendas are anti- élitist and politically perverted to charm angry mobs. Quite interestingly, when such high-handed negotiation turns unfavorable, Trump withdraws his demand immediately. Therefore, he is nicknamed TACO, Trump Always Chickens Out.

Among America’s trade partners, Trump hits China most bitterly to appeal his tough posture to his MAGA base in the Rust Belt. But sane economists snub such a reality show since Trump’s election campaign. It is not China but labor movement to the Sun Belt that has led to job losses in the Rust Belt. Trump’s tariff attack is completely off the point (3). More typically, "thin-centered ideology" is seen in the trade talks with Brazil. He threatens President Lula da Silva with a 50% tariff bluff, unless his country releases former President Jair Bolsonaro who is currently in custody for his failed coup attempt after the presidential election in 2022. Trump infringes on criminal jurisdiction of other country, which is intolerable from the rule of law perspective. Furthermore, the United States has been in surplus in trade with Brazil since 2007 (4). What is the objective of Trump’s tariff hike? Are those trade talks just reality shows of bullying foreign trade partners and free trade inclined establishment?

2. Anti-Semitism
Blaming college research and education as left-oriented, Trump infringes on academic freedom. Along with denouncing DEI movements in college campuses, Trump labels student rallies against Israeli attack on Gaza as woke and anti-Semitist. But it does not make sense as Trump and his associates have been endorsing far right movements in Europe. In the first term, Trump’s ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, was vehemently criticized for urging the rise of pro-Trump right-wing movements throughout Europe. Such political interference infringes Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relationships (5). In the second term, Elon Musk launched notorious MEGA campaign. Also, Trump’s election campaign was boosted by social media activist Nick Fuentes who is a notorious holocaust denier. In addition, some Trump administration officials are closely tied with anti-Semitists to promote their right-wing views. Paul Ingrassia, White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, is closely in contact with holocaust deniers including Fuentes. At the Department of Justice, Trump’s pick of Ed Martin to the Attorney for the District of Columbia (currently, Pardon Attorney) raised concerns for his praise of a Nazi sympathizer Hale-Cusanelli. Also, FBI Director Kash Patel hosted a holocaust denier Stew Peters to his podcast before his inauguration (6). If anti-Semitism matters so much, why did Trump appoint them?

Nevertheless, “thin centered ideology” does not care such logical contradictions. MAGA mobs align with Zionist extremist not because they are pro-Jewish but because they are driven by anti-establishment and xenophobia, particularly Muslims hate sentiments. Those anti-intellectualists label protests against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Gaza policy as woke and pro-terrorist. That is Trump’s definition of anti-Semitism. Therefore, there is nothing strange that holocaust deniers, Christian nationalists and other right-wingers resonate with Trump’s case. However, Israelis do not necessarily support Netanyahu on Gaza as it gives insufficient consideration to hostages taken by Hamas (7). Also, Jews in the USA are not necessarily blind supporters of Israel (8). Quite a few Jews are critical to Zionist extremism. Trump’s anti-Semitism is poorly grounded, but "thin centered ideology" interprets the term in its own preference.

3. Iran
The recent conflict with Iran is another case of Trump’s thin-centered ideology as he swung from isolationism to military adventurism. While Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in his first term, he initiated “peaceful” bilateral negotiations with Iran for nuclear nonproliferation in the second term. As seen in Syria and Afghanistan in his first term, Trump wanted to lower US military involvement in the Middle East. However, Netanyahu drew Trump’s America into Israeli attack on Iran. From Arab viewpoints, Israel and the United States share common enemies, notably, anti-Zionist extremists and Iran. Also, Arabs are impressed with Netanyahu’s political skill to control America regardless of partisanship (9). Israel has leverage to keep the United States on its side through pro-Israeli lobbying and Christian right-wingers. Among successive prime ministers of this country, Netanyahu is outstandingly good at communicating with those groups and American audiences (10). Also, he may have exploited Trump’s distrust of US intelligence as shown in his sidelining of DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard. Trump attacked Iran based on Mossad information (11).

Drawn into an unwanted skirmish against Iran, Trump remarked quite an unlikely word of “regime change” in Iran as opposed to his MAGA election pledge. Trump has been mocking internationalist foreign policy as “establishment” and “neocon”. More critically, his administration is slashing the number of personnel in the National Security Council and the Foreign Service. Remember, America invested so much brainpower in postwar Germany and Japan. A DOGE-driven small government is too under-staffed to make a plan for such a huge project. Obviously, this administration too ill-prepared for regime change, even if Trump changed his foreign policy direction suddenly. He did not show any ideals and policies about Iran after the current Shiite theocracy. In addition, the oligarchic nature of his administration makes its foreign policy increasingly driven by “thin centered ideology”, because of conflict of interest between the state and its members' business. Currently, the United States have three difficult diplomatic negotiations on Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran, and Trump sends his business friend Steve Witkoff for all of them. Such caudillismo comes from anti-establishment and anti-intellectualist disdain of nonpartisan and professional foreign service, which is closely associated with DOGE-lead personnel cut at the Department of State (12). Professor Nicholas Burns of Harvard University mentioned critical concerns about that in an interview with NPR (13), as the Bush administration’s ambassador to NATO and the Biden administration’s ambassador to China.

Despite Trump’s flamboyant appeal of the abrupt attack on Iran, it was not effective enough to wipe out all the nuclear facilities and their will to continue the project. Unlike Ba’athist Iraq and Syria, Iran has institutions to withstand a long war. even if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and IRGC generals were killed (14). Trump is quite “thin-centered” about Iranian denuclearization. Reviewing the case of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution mentions that bombing is no guarantee to remove nuclear threats. Rather, he warns that Trump wants to seize the opportunity to tighten dictatorial control over law enforcement through those showy attacks, as seen in his National Guard deployment in the Los Angels protests this June. If Iran retaliated the United States by terrorism, Trump would declare the state of emergency. Therefore, Kagan is concerned that whatever success Trump makes in Iran would undermine liberal democracy globally (15).

Conclusion
Even though, Turmp’s “thin-centered ideology” shows no coherent policy directions, regardless of issues, his rule is driven by his own greed to exhibit his presence to the nation and the world. That is typically seen in strong quest for the Nobel Peace Prize. By winning the prize, he may want to demonstrate his superiority against his archrival, ex-President Barack Obama. Since the Norwegian committee, not MAGA Americans, selects the laureate, it is quite unlikely that he wins the prize. Nevertheless, Trump can make his MAGA base exuberated by challenging Obama. His repetitive anti-establishment and anti-intellectualist posture is intended to demonstrate his superiority to the élite and foreign nations, which draws applause from mobs who are obsessed with hate for others. Considering rightful criticism by Burns and Kagan, it is utterly wrong to assume Trump as something of the Zeitgeist (epoch spirit) of Americans today.

“Thin-centered ideology” may be inconsistent logically, but very consistent emotionally. This is a keyword to explore unpredictable nature of the Trump rule. The notion of the focal terminology of this article is quite old and new, as Bertrand Russell stated “The first step [in a fascist movement] is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other,” in 1940 (16). As we understand, populism and fascism are deeply intertwined each other.



Footnotes:
(1) “The populist logic behind Trump’s tariffs”; LSE British Policy and Politics blog; April 2, 2025

(2) “【Book Review】Mudde, Cas; Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017).[Populism: A Very Short Introduction]. Oxford: Oxford University Press"; Tokyo Foundation; May 17, 2021

(3) “Shifts, Not Shocks: Rethinking Rust Belt Decline”; CATO at Liberty; May 23, 2025

(4) “Trump threatens 50% tariffs on Brazil if it doesn’t stop the Bolsonaro ‘witch hunt’ trial”; CNN; July 11, 2025

(5) “Trump's Ambassador Finds Few Friends in Germany”; Spiegel; January 11, 2019

(6) “Multiple Trump White House officials have ties to antisemitic extremists”; NPR; May 14, 2025

(7) “Netanyahu hopes for boost from Iran conflict - but do Israelis still trust him?”; BBC; 28 June 2025

(8) “'I left one conflict zone to enter another': Harvard's Jewish foreign students on Trump row”; BBC; 30 May 2025

(9) “From Clinton to Trump, Netanyahu fights with presidents and wins”; Arab Weekly; 22 June, 2025

(10) “Exactly Why Is It that All American Presidents Dance to Bibi’s Tune?”; The New Republic; June 20, 2025

(11) “US strikes failed to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, intelligence report says”; Reuters; June 25, 2025,br>
(12) “Israel’s attack on Iran underscores Trump’s failures as a peacemaker”; Washington Post; June 13, 2025

(13) “Former U.S. ambassador to NATO discusses downsizing in the State Department”; NPR; July 12, 2025

(14) “Regime change in Iran seems unlikely amid war with Israel, Middle East scholar says”; PBS; Jun 21, 2025

(15) “American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran”; Atlantic; June 21, 2025
Or, AOL
(16) p253 in “Freedom and Government”, Bertrand Russell; “Freedom: Its Meaning”, Ruth Nanda Anshen (ed); 1940

How does a generative AI tell us about a Euro-Japanese alliance in the Trump world?

US President Donald Trump articulates more radicalized MAGA and America First position in his second term, without being moderated by adults in the room. As seen in his transactional pursuit of a peace deal in Ukraine, the world is turning toward a disorder. In such a world, Liberal Democracies need a risk hedge to override the chaos by MAGA-jacked America. A Euro-Japanese alliance could serve this objective, but it would not be an alternative but a supplement of the trans-Atlantic and the US-Japanese alliances. It is still unrealistic for American allies worldwide to throw away the security umbrella completely. In an increasingly complicated world like this, can generative AI show some policy directions for the future? As an example, I would like to talk about Grok answers to my questions on a Euro-Japanese alliance in the Trump world.

Grok is a recently added generative AI application on Twitter (Currently, X). Based on the profile summary from my tweets, it explained briefly about a Euro-Japanese alliance as follows. There are strategic rationales from three points, Russian threats in both Europe and Asia, Chinese BRI worldwide and anti-FOIP challenges, and predatory America First by Trump. In practice, Europe and Japan would be able to pursue military cooperation such as intelligence sharing and joint R&D of weapons, and economic policy coordination. Politically, a united Euro-Japanese voice at the UN and G7 would boost the rule-based world order, which would help small nations such as Ukraine, Baltic states, and Taiwan stand up against predatory great powers in their neighborhood like Russia and China. The problem is geographical remoteness of both sides and American discomfort with being sidelined from the alliance.

This is just a typical textbook introduction of the main agenda, and further conversations are necessary to judge the real thinking capability of generative AI. Among those questions, I would like to focus on whether Grok understands lengthy and complicated questions properly, not just words but nuances, and how it streamlines the direction of the argument lucidly. Let’s see some unorthodox ones of my own interest, rather than something orthodox and expectable about Euro-Japanese relations and Trump's America (1).

【Question 1】: Trump told the media that only the monkey model of the F-47, the next generation fighter jets, is available for allies. That is what the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. His brain is Russified so much. Should American allies invest more in independent high-tech weapons such as GCAP and FCAS fighters? Also, Trump's remark does not make sense, as Iran's F-14s have been in poor condition since the Islamic Revolution. It seems that he is interested in sales profit from the next-generation fighter rather than global security.

In reply, Grok admitted my concerns with monkey model provisionally, that Trump may not have “Russified” his mindsets but he prioritizes export profit of the F-47 for the United States to the security of allies. Regarding whether allies should invest in the GCAP by Britain, Japan, and Italy, or the FCAS by France, Germany, and Spain, instead of “dubious” F-47 (2)(3), Grok outlines both R&D projects, and concluded that the GCAP meets Japan’s timetable for deployment(4) against China, but future acquisition of the F-47 should not be ruled out even though it is downgraded. I understand this reply that it takes years for R&D of the next generation fighter, and the future US administration could permit regular model exports of it. Also, it did not mention a shock of supply chain cut if a Trump-like nationalist stop component exports of this fighter jet as it happened in the case of Iranian F-14s(5). AI does not answer everything.

Nevertheless, this AI application mentioned the vital point of my question that Soviet-styled monkey model export by Trump illustrates his deep-rooted America First mindsets. As to this question, though lengthy and not so simple, generative AI understands my intention so profoundly. Quite interestingly, I mistyped GCAP for GPAC in the question, but Grok interpreted it correctly.

【Question 2】: Now, a question about nuclear deterrence. Should Japan help R&D to boost British and French nuclear capability while not possessing its own nuclear weapons? Japan, as an independent nuclear power, would accelerate the collapse of the global non-proliferation regime, which in turn would pose critical threats to its national security. Also, how about Japan's nuclear sharing with both countries, in case Trump's America abdicates its allies?

This question is quite controversial as Japan maintains the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, not possessing, not producing, and not introducing nuclear weapons into its territory. However, since America’s nuclear umbrella is turning unreliable in Trump’s second term, a risk hedge is a critical issue for Japan. Grok replied to my question from two points, R&D and nuclear sharing. While it mentions positively about the former, somewhat cautiously about the latter. Japan has money and technology to help Britain and France bost their nuclear capability. Also, it is not the interest of the global community if Japan runs the risk of provoking proliferation to other non-nuclear powers to destroy the global arms control regime by possessing its own nuclear arsenals. This is also the case with Japan’s nuclear sharing with Britain and France. However, nuclear sharing could trigger anti-nuclear sentiment in Japan more seriously for fear of escalating tensions with China. Also, an increasingly nationalist United States might doubt Japan’s loyalty to the alliance if such a risk hedge were explored.

But I do not necessarily agree to Grok’s concerns with “nukes on home soil is taboo” among the Japanese because British and French nuclear weapons would not be deployed permanently as most of them are not land-based. They just come to naval or air force facilities in Japan when necessary. After all, a sovereign and independent nuclear deterrence is the last of the last of the last resort for Japan. Therefore, I would argue that it necessary to think about a nuclear security partnership with Britain and France both in terms of quality and quantity, to fill a vacuum of superpower suicide by a populist-jacked America regardless of partisanship. Currently, their nuclear deterrence is too small, even if combined (6).

Quite interestingly, Britain is reconsidering its dependence on the US-made Trident SLBM as the governance of Trump’s America is a critical risk to its national security. Currently, the following three options are considered for its sovereign independent nuclear weapons. That is to build up deterrence by itself or with France. But in both cases, the economy of scale for nuclear R&D is restricted. Therefore, the third option that is to boost Britain’s nuclear deterrence within the Euro-Atlantic multilateral framework such as NATO is considered (7). In that case, some Pacific nations like Japan, Australia, etc. could join the project.

【Question 3】: The problem is not just geopolitics. The fall of democracy in Trump's America is a fatal problem, as mentioned in a recent article by Chris Patten in Project Syndicate. Though he was very close to pro-American Thatcher, as opposed to pro-EU Heseltine, he insists that Britain be more sovereign and autonomous from MAGA-jacked America. He understands both Europe and Asia through his career in politics. Given this, how would a Euro-Japanese alliance lead value-oriented diplomacy of the world when America is withdrawing the freedom ideal and humanitarianism?

As I mention in the question, UK Lord Chris Patten was a devoted Atlanticist and a darling of the Reagan-Thatcher world order, and a consummate British diplomat both in Asia and Europe as the last governor of Hong Kong and former European Commissioner for External Relations. From this career background, Patten argues Britain downgrade the decades-long special relationship with the United States because Trump’s America is no longer the bearer of freedom values as seen in the January 6 riot. As the ex-Chancellor of Oxford University, he reflects on the history of the Anglo-American alliance since Winston Churchill academically, to argue that Trump destroyed the fundamental premise of shared values. Therefore, Patten urges Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Britain not to give in to every demand that Trump makes (8). Quite appallingly, Starmer is repealing hate speech laws in return for a favorable trade deal with Trump’s America (9). What a horrible kowtow that the Labour adopts a MAGA policy! In addition, Trump’s sheer lack of knowledge in history and geopolitics is revealed in his big power-focused diplomacy, because World Wars began from small countries such as Sebia, Czechoslovakia, and Poland as Patten mentions.

Considering chaotic governance in current America and poor understanding of international affairs by its incumbent president, a Euro-Japanese alliance could complement the lack of US leadership in value-oriented diplomacy. Let me review the Grok reply. Besides shared values of democracy, rule of law, and human rights, both sides are committed to humanitarian issues such as disaster relief and the environment. Their respect for a rule-based world order leads them to object to Trump’s way of racketeering of small nations in the name of deal diplomacy. That makes the global security environment favorable for authoritarian powers, but Trump does not care. From the experience of negotiating with China regarding democratic governance of Hong Kong, Patten learned the danger of making an impetuous compromise with authoritarian power. If Trump is really abdicating Ukraine and Taiwan, a Euro-Japanese alliance could fill the vacuum to help Patten’s vison of reorganizing the League of Democracies. But we have to remember that neither Europe nor Japan can replace the current US-centered alliance with the alliance of democratic middle power simply though moral high grounds, because the United States is too big and strong despite Trump, and separated geography may split strategic priority of Europe and Japan.

Finally, the most critical issue of the world order today is Trump tariffs. How should a Euro-Japanese alliance manage the trade war with Trump’s America? I asked the following question recently(10).

【Question 4】: The trade negotiations are not only about the global economic regime, but also about geopolitics. Although more multilateral approaches are desirable, some countries seem to prioritize their deal-making with Trump rather than standing against his America First trade policy through multilateral solidarity. Among them, I would like to ask about two major economies.
(1) Japan is willing to reach an early agreement with Trump, but if it is hasty, will it set a bad precedent for other countries’ trade talks? Is the Ishiba administration too Japan First?
(2) Britain suggested repealing hate speech laws in return for tariff cuts. If the Labour cabinet accepts MAGA agendas so easily, the Conservative Party could move farther to the right, which could prompt an ideological surenchère in Britain’s domestic politics. Will it help Elon Musk’s MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) initiative to provoke right-wing populism in Europe, which would ultimately disunify NATO and the EU?

Regarding Japan, Grok admits the risk of becoming a bad precedent, but comments that Ishiba is not so much Japan First with his close policy coordination with FOIP participants and NATO. This counterargument has some points as Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba stressed Japan’s role to mediate the United States and ASEAN nations in the trade war on his recent visit to Vietnam and the Philippines (11). Still, there is a concern that Japan’s rush for a hasty agreement could break up the world trade order. In the trade talk with Trump’s America, Ishiba officials mention almost entirely about Japan’s national interest. That sounds quite Japan First for a staunch proponent of the liberal world order and Never Trumper like me.

As to Britain, Grok admits my concern that Starmer’s concession to MAGA would embolden Conservative rightwing or even Reform UK. Furthermore, infiltration of MAGA political culture would boost anti-EU or anti-NATO sentiments throughout Europe, which would Elon Musk’s MEGA agitation. Grok refers to my previous question about Patten’s warning in its reply that a U.S. democratic backslide empowers Europe’s illiberal fringes, and Labour’s concessions could grease that slide. While acting cautiously, pro-EU Starmer explores new trade and security partnership with the EU to counter Trump (12).

Prior to this, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for an international coordination in macroeconomic and financial policy to overcome worldwide recession and inflation by Trump tariffs as the global community did in the 2008 financial crisis (13). Also, he advocates collective initiatives for the new world order of reconstructed rule of law that incorporates emerging economies. A Euro-Japanese alliance that I mention can listen to them to rearrange rule-based multilateralism against sharp power transactionalism by Trump's America, Putin's Russia, and Xi Jinping's China. For this objective, Brown urges the UK to restore strategic partnership with the EU in security and the economy to override the post-Brexit shock (14).

Generative AI is quite helpful in streamlining thoughts and occasionally, realizing overlooked points, particularly in exploring complicated issue like a Euro-Japanese alliance in the world of increasing uncertainty. Also, it would be helpful for teachers to get used to AI thinking, in order to check AI cheating by students when they submit reports and essays. Finally, we have to notice that Elon Musk uses AI for his controversial work at the DOGE, and a familiarity with this application would be useful to understand his strange ways of thinking. After all, AI is no panacea to resolve the problem. The answer by the AI depends on the quality of question by each person. Also, various AIs are emerging and evolving one after another, and each of them has its own strength and weakness. We have to bear it in mind to discuss the issue of a Euro-Japanese alliance in the Trump world. More questions and deeper questions to AI are necessary to explore this matter furthermore.



Footnotes:
(1) Grok Chat

(2) "Sixth-Generation Fighter Showdown: F-47, GCAP, FCAS, and J-36 (Baidi)"; European Defence Review; 24 March, 2025

(3) "Will Boeing’s F-47 ‘KILL’ European GCAP & FCAS Programs As U.S. Could Export 6th-Gen Jets To Allies?"; Eurasian Times; March 23, 2025

(4) "Global Combat Air Programme Joint Statement"; UK Government; 20 November 2024

(5) "How Iran manages to keep its F-14 Tomcats flying"; Key Aero; August 2, 2022

(6) "Can Europe Build Its Own Nuclear Umbrella?"; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; April 3. 2025

(7) "The UK’s nuclear deterrent relies on US support – but there are no other easy alternatives"; Chatham House; 24 March, 2025

(8) "Britain Must Downgrade the Special Relationship"; Project Syndicate; February 28, 2025

(9) "Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal"; Independent; 16 April, 2025

(10) Grok Chat

(11) "Japan's role for ASEAN increasingly crucial amid US tariff standoff"; Mainichi Shimbun; April 30, 2025

(12) "UK and EU defy Trump with new strategic partnership to boost trade and security"; Guardian; 29 April, 2025

(13) "Trump is pushing the world towards recession. By learning the lessons of 2008, we can still prevent it"; Giardian; 10 April, 2025

(14) "The ‘new world order’ of the past 35 years is being demolished before our eyes. This is how we must proceed"; Guardian; 12 April, 2025

Do not trust Rubio the Turncoat, the new Secretary of State!

Republican Senator Marco Rubio was unanimously approved for the Secretary of State on President Donald Trump’s inauguration day for his second term. He is one of the less controversial nominees among the Trump administration, and therefore, he is the first cabinet member to be appointed in the Second Trump administration (1). There is no doubt that Rubio is far better than some of Trump’s picks. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was harshly questioned his credential for his alcoholism and sexual violence. But with the tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance, he was barely approved at the Senate (2). Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard is also severely questioned for her affinity with Russia and ex-President Bashar Assad of Syria. British national security circles are critically concerned with this as her appointment would devastate the intelligence cooperation of the Five Eyes (3). Rubio is not regarded so problematic as those picks, but we have to remember his flip flop in foreign policy ever since he surrendered Trump in the Republican primary of the presidential election in 2016. Also, his flattering apology for his campaign ridicule to Trump appeared a miserable kowtow to the alpha male gorilla, as Trump attacked him with abusive words more cruelly.

Rubio has been engaged in foreign affairs in the House and the Senate for a long time, before running for the presidential election when the Obama term was ending. In the Republican primary, he upheld the New American Century ideal, which was more in resonance with former Republican candidate John McCain’s vision of American leadership in the world, rather than Trump’s America First. He was well aware of the impact of turmoil overseas on US national security in an increasingly interconnected world. Therefore, he criticized President-then Barack Obama’s “nation-building at home” policy for massive cuts in defense spending, skepticism for moral diplomacy, and appeasement to the enemies worldwide including Russia, China, Iran, Islamic extremists, etc. Quite importantly, he endorsed enduring American commitment to Asia, Europe, and the Middle East for global security and prosperity (4). After the surrender, Rubio conformed his foreign policy views with Trump’s America First, although he had schooled the notion of nuclear triad in the primary debate to the alpha male gorilla who has far less knowledge and experience in foreign policy than him (5).

Such inconsistency was criticized by Rubio’s ex-foreign policy advisor Max Boot. In an interview with PBS News in 2021, Boot commented that he was disappointed with Rubio because he changed the attitude to Trump after suspended his campaign. When Rubio stayed in the race, he questioned Trump’s credentials for the commander in chief because the alpha male gorilla knew fatally little about nuclear arms control. But after dropping out, Rubio began to speak about Trump’s causes and even to emulate his words and phrases (6). Clearly, the cabinet position is a reward for such loyalty to the alpha male. Quite noticeably, Robert Kagan, who was a foreign policy advisor for Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney as Boot was, joined the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s team. Kagan may have recognized something to indicate the degradation of the Republican Party even though Trump was regarded as the joke candidate in the earlier stage. Also, he may have recognized some character deficiencies with Rubio as shown in his servile “Don’t go against the tide” attitude to Trump.

At the Senate confirmation hearing before the inauguration, Rubio outlined his foreign policy views, which were starkly at odds with those of the New American Century that he upheld in his 2016 campaign. He argued for a foreign policy of “realistic” approaches on Ukraine, humanitarian aid, and other global issues. Implicitly, that word implies a foreign policy of restraint such as the offshore balancing strategy of Obama. Therefore, he has reversed his initial ideas in his presidential bid, and defends Trump’s America First unabashedly. From that point of view, he regards competition in technology and the global markets, and in politico-military influence with China far more critical to national security than rivalry in global and Eurasian geostrategy, and in ideological superiority with Russia. His China hawk vision is intertwined with protectionist trade policy to “rebuild domestic industrial capacity”, which is a deviation from his free trade view in the 2016 presidential bid (7). As he stated in the hearing, the confirmed Secretary of State declared to freeze humanitarian foreign aid to meet America First demand, i.e., not to fund projects which Trump thought useless to help US interests in the economy and national security directly, such as democracy promotion, empowerment, etc (8). But in face of criticism, Rubio waived the freeze of “humanitarian” projects for lifesaving such as medical service, public health, food supply, etc, except those for abortion and LGBTQ issues. The decision leaves American foreign aid workers in a complete mess as the definition of “lifesaving” is unclear, and they cannot decide whether to continue or stop their activities (9). That is the consequence of Rubio’s Trump First management of the State Department.

With such servile loyalty to Trump, Rubio visited Latin America including Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Costa Rica for his first foreign trip as the Secretary of State, in order to dismantle growing influence of China (10). Rubio’s Hispanic background was taken into account upon his nomination, which indicates the Trump administration places heavy emphasis on America’s southern backyard, in order to implement the Monroe Doctrine of this century as shown in Trump’s vexing remarks on Canada, Greenland, and Panama Canal. Alexander Gray, senior fellow of the American Foreign Policy Council and former chief of staff at the National Security Council in Trump’s first term presidency, justifies this new Monroe Doctrine in his recent article in Foreign Policy. Quite disappointingly, he is preoccupied with edging out influence of America’s strategic opponents from Latin America, but hardly mentions visionary ideas to deepen mutual partnership in regional security, economic development, governance and empowerment, as cited proudly in the Alliance for Progress by President John F Kennedy in the 1960s. Trump-styled Monroe Doctrine that Gray advocates is narrow-sightedly driven by the fear of China, and he speaks geopolitical rivalry from victimhood mindsets, i.e., America’s strategic interests are infringed. He does not show the slightest idea about America’s role as the guardian of the liberal world order (11).

The prospect of Trump diplomacy in Latin America is dismal, according to Rodrigo Moura an international infrastructure projects lawyer and a PhD. candidate at the University of Essex. Whether right or left, Latin American and Caribbean nations are exploring more diversified foreign relations, rather than predominant dependence on the United States in the past. More critically, Trump scapegoats Latin American counties to appeal to his MAGA rock solid base, as shown in his coercive tariff on Colombia over the undocumented immigrant deportation dispute. That would nurture anti-American sentiments furthermore, which would ultimately help China. As long as Rubio represents Trump’s MAGA agenda in domestic politics such as trade and immigrants, it is unlikely that he would improve American reputation in the region (12). And globally, Trump`s Monroe Doctrine places disproportionate emphasis on China over Russia, as MAGA voters regard geopolitics in Europe as remote and irrelevant to them, while they are imperiled with Chinese threat to their jobs. Trump wants to split China and Russia as Henry Kissinger did in history. However, the Sino-Soviet rift had already existed before Kissinger’s secret diplomacy. Today, China and Russia are not in rift but aligned as shown in BRICS meeting and the war in Ukraine. Lopsided China hawk views among MAGA republicans are wrong (13). After all, Rubio has Trumpified himself as typically seen in his defense of Trump’s unhumanitarian “Riviera” comment about Gaza (14), while calling Latin American autocracies including Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba enemies of humanity (15).

With more uncompromisingly MAGA Trump and increasingly subservient cabinet members are in, America today has changed from a bright power (bearer of rules and norms for the world order) to a dark power (unabashed pursuer of beggar thy neighbor policy at the expense of others). Even unanimously approved secretary of state is strongly influenced by rightwing populism at home. American allies are rearranging relations with America of Trump 2.0. Europe is exploring strategic autonomy acceleratingly, which requires Britain’s reengagement with the Continent as Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted in the general election last July. However, Trump appears to split Britain from the rest of Europe in the tariff war (16). He even considers the United Kingdom as the first country to visit in this term (17). Despite that, as Trump considers 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum import unanimously, it is not clear how much would it hit non-EU Britain (18). Above all, Trump’s trade war is at odds with his demand for a self-reliant Europe in defense against Russia, because that will break the unity and weaken resilience of them.

As to Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba ended his diplomatic meeting with Trump successfully for the time being. However, Tobia Harris, a Japanese politics analyst, mentioned that the second term Trump does not need advices from a foreign leader, and therefore, the Abe legacy does not necessarily work for him (19). Therefore, Japan should still keep alert to Trump’s sporadic words and deeds. Remember, ex-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes comments in recent article in the New York Times that Trump suddenly expresses territorial greed for Canada, Greenland, and Panama Canal, which was not stated in his election pledge (20). Japan is a fragile blossom without the umbrella of multilateral security structure, but it has long experience of diplomatic relations with “bad guys”, thanks to “pragmatic peaceful realism” by Tanzan Ishibashi as mentioned in the interview with Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya by Professor Yuichi Hosoya of Keio University (21). The notable case is the JICA’s training for Ukrainian demining in Cambodia under the Hun Sen administration (22). Such experience would be helpful to treat Trump.

Finally, I would like to mention that Secretary Rubio still understands the importance of bipartisan foreign policy, despite his submissive attitude to Trump the alpha male gorilla. He proposed a bill with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine to stop unilateral withdrawal from NATO by the president in 2023 (23). Hopefully, he would give priority to his conscience over personal loyalty to his boss when national and global security is critically tested.



Footnotes:
(1) "Senate confirms Marco Rubio as secretary of state, giving Trump the first member of his Cabinet"; AP News; January 21, 2025

(2) "Vance Breaks Tie To Confirm Pete Hegseth For Pentagon"; Daily Wire; January 25, 2025

(3) Twitter; @carolecadwalla; November 14, 2024

(4) "Marco Rubio's Foreign Policy Vision"; Council on Foreign Relations; May 13, 2015

(5) "Marco Rubio schools Donald Trump on the nuclear triad"; Politico; December 15, 2015

(6) "Max Boot: “Extremists” in Control of the Republican Party"; PBS News; October 22, 2021

(7) "Rubio details what Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy will entail"; Washington Post; January 15, 2025

(8) "State Department freezes new funding for nearly all US aid programs worldwide"; AP News; January 25, 2025

(9) "Rubio backtracks on near-total foreign aid freeze, issues humanitarian waiver"; Washington Post; January 28, 2025

(10) "Rubio Sends Strong Message With Destination Of His First Foreign Trip"; Daily Wire; January 23, 2025

(11) "Trump Will End U.S. Passivity in the Western Hemisphere"; Foreign Policy; January 13, 2025

(12) "Can Marco Rubio Help Rebuild US Influence in Latin America – and Erode China’s?"; Dilomat; January 29, 2025

(13) "Transition 2025: Events Will Test Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Promises"; Council on Foreign Relations; December 13, 2024

(14) "Trump aides defend Gaza takeover proposal but walk back some elements"; Reuters News; February 6, 2025

(15) Twitter; @StateDept; February 6, 2025

(16) "Trump's Tariff Threats Drive New Wedge Between UK and Europe"; Financial Post; February 4, 2025

(17) "Trump says Starmer is doing ‘a very good job’ ahead of phone call between two leaders"; Leading Britain's Conversation; 26 January, 2025

(18) "Donald Trump’s tariffs: what’s happening and what could it mean for the UK?"; Full Fact; 4 February, 2025

(19) "LDP election, 'Who is America alarmed with?'"; Sankei Shimbun; September 17, 2024

(20) "This Isn't the Donald Trump America Elected"; New York Times; February 9, 2025

(21) "Interview with Foreign Minister Iwaya: Japanese foreign policy in 2025"; Gaiko; January/February 2025

(22) "Japan partners with Cambodia to share demining knowledge with Ukraine, other countries"; AP News; July 7, 2024

(23) "Congress approves bill barring presidents from unilaterally exiting NATO"; Washington Post; December 18, 2023