ABSTRACT
The unfolding story of Syria’s conflict and the role of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) offers a profound lens through which to examine the intricate interplay of regional ambitions, global policies, and the aspirations of a stateless people. Emerging from the chaos of the Syrian Civil War, the SDF became a linchpin in the fight against ISIS, liberating vast territories and asserting control over key resources like oil, water, and agriculture. Yet, their alliance with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) tied them to a contentious geopolitical narrative, as Turkey vehemently opposed their existence, equating them with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a group Ankara designates as a terrorist organization. This precarious position placed the SDF at the heart of a complex web of alliances and enmities, where survival required deft navigation of international politics.
At the center of these dynamics was the United States, whose partnership with the SDF was born out of necessity during the campaign against ISIS. This alliance, however, was riddled with contradictions. Washington’s strategic support for the SDF often clashed with its commitments to NATO ally Turkey, leading to policy decisions that oscillated between support and withdrawal. The Trump administration’s decision to reduce U.S. troop levels in Syria had immediate repercussions, exposing Kurdish forces to Turkish offensives and forcing them to cede critical territories. This vacuum invited Russia and Iran to expand their influence, with Moscow positioning itself as a mediator and Tehran embedding its strategic interests in Syria’s economic and military frameworks. Meanwhile, the Caesar Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. aimed to economically isolate the Assad regime, but these measures also deepened the humanitarian crisis, complicating aid delivery and prolonging civilian suffering.
Turkey’s military incursions into northern Syria under the guise of creating a buffer zone added another layer of complexity. While Ankara’s objectives were framed as security measures to prevent a Kurdish autonomous region from forming along its border, the consequences were far-reaching. The displacement of tens of thousands of civilians and the reshaping of regional demographics underscored the human cost of these campaigns. Simultaneously, Turkey’s actions strained its relationships within NATO, as its overtures to Russia—including the acquisition of S-400 missile systems—raised concerns about the alliance’s cohesion.
The broader implications of Trump’s Syria policy extended to the region’s fragile balance of power. His focus on securing oil fields as a strategic asset demonstrated a transactional approach to foreign policy, prioritizing resource control over humanitarian considerations. This perspective left local populations vulnerable to the enduring effects of conflict, as infrastructure remained neglected and stability elusive. Meanwhile, ISIS’ territorial defeat under Trump’s watch masked deeper issues. The absence of a comprehensive stabilization strategy for liberated areas allowed extremist ideologies to fester, with prisons holding ISIS fighters becoming flashpoints for renewed violence and instability.
The involvement of external powers further entrenched Syria’s position as a battleground for competing interests. Russia’s military and diplomatic initiatives, combined with Iran’s entrenchment through proxy forces and infrastructure projects, highlighted the vacuum left by U.S. disengagement. This shift not only altered Syria’s internal dynamics but also forced European and Middle Eastern actors to reassess their roles and strategies in the conflict. China’s cautious entry into Syria through infrastructure investments linked to the Belt and Road Initiative signaled a new dimension to the geopolitical chessboard, adding economic stakes to an already volatile situation.
Within this intricate tableau, the SDF’s future remains uncertain. The prospect of integrating Kurdish fighters into the Syrian Armed Forces reflects ongoing negotiations that pit Kurdish aspirations for autonomy against Damascus’s insistence on centralized control. This debate is further complicated by Turkey’s staunch opposition to any Kurdish political or military entity. The sociopolitical fabric of northeastern Syria—a region marked by ethnic diversity and resource wealth—stands as a microcosm of the broader challenges facing post-conflict reconstruction. Efforts to reintegrate these territories into the Syrian state must contend with the dual pressures of preserving local governance structures and addressing the economic and infrastructural devastation wrought by years of war.
As the international community grapples with these issues, the Syrian conflict underscores the limitations of transactional diplomacy and unilateral approaches. Trump’s policies, though achieving certain tactical objectives, have left a legacy of unresolved tensions and shifting allegiances. The conflict’s complexity demands sustained, nuanced engagement that balances immediate needs with long-term stability, offering a sobering reminder of the intricate interdependencies that define modern geopolitics. This narrative, steeped in the struggles of a fractured nation and the ambitions of global powers, continues to unfold, shaping the trajectory of Syria and its people for years to come.
Aspect | Detailed Explanation |
---|---|
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) | The SDF emerged as a critical actor during the Syrian conflict, created as a coalition led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in 2015. Its primary mission was to combat ISIS, which led to substantial territorial gains, including control over strategic resources such as oil fields, agricultural zones, and water infrastructure. This territorial expansion elevated the SDF’s geopolitical significance but also tied them to contentious dynamics, particularly with Turkey, which views the YPG as a direct affiliate of the PKK, a designated terrorist group. The SDF’s dual role in governance and military operations has positioned it at the center of international debates about the future of Syria’s sovereignty and Kurdish autonomy. |
Turkey’s Role and Objectives | Turkey’s involvement in Syria is driven by dual motivations: addressing security threats from the Kurdish militias and pursuing broader regional ambitions. The Turkish government has conducted multiple military incursions into northern Syria, aiming to establish buffer zones along its borders to prevent a Kurdish autonomous region. Ankara equates the SDF and YPG with the PKK, using this as a justification for aggressive military actions. These incursions have destabilized the region, displaced civilian populations, and complicated the balance of power, straining Turkey’s relations with NATO allies. Concurrently, Turkey has sought to reshape the demographic composition of northern Syria by resettling Syrian refugees in these contested zones. |
United States’ Policies | The U.S. adopted a pragmatic partnership with the SDF during the fight against ISIS, providing military and logistical support. While the SDF’s effectiveness in defeating ISIS cemented their value as an ally, U.S. policy remained inconsistent. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw most U.S. troops in 2019 left Kurdish forces exposed to Turkish offensives, undermining the partnership. The remaining limited U.S. military presence, primarily to secure oil fields, reflected a transactional approach. Furthermore, the U.S. enacted economic sanctions, such as the Caesar Act, targeting the Assad regime while complicating humanitarian aid efforts and exacerbating the crisis for ordinary Syrians. |
Economic Sanctions and Caesar Act | The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2020 aimed to economically isolate the Assad regime by imposing severe sanctions on entities involved in reconstruction efforts. While these measures targeted the regime’s ability to rebuild, they also had broader consequences, including deepening the humanitarian crisis and hindering the delivery of essential aid. Regional economies, particularly in Lebanon and Jordan, also suffered collateral damage due to disrupted trade and financial networks, further destabilizing the Middle East. These sanctions exemplified the challenges of isolating a regime without exacerbating suffering for its population. |
Russia’s Expanding Role | Russia capitalized on the U.S. troop withdrawal and inconsistent policies to deepen its influence in Syria. Moscow has supported the Assad regime through military interventions, reconstruction initiatives, and diplomatic backing. Russia’s leadership in forums like the Astana peace talks has sidelined U.S. efforts, positioning itself as the dominant power broker in shaping Syria’s future. By reinforcing its foothold in Syria, Russia has strengthened its broader geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East, challenging Western influence. |
Iran’s Strategic Entrenchment | Iran’s involvement in Syria reflects its long-term strategy to establish regional dominance through proxy militias and infrastructure projects. Tehran’s support for the Assad regime includes military aid and initiatives aimed at embedding its influence within Syria’s economic and political systems. This deep entrenchment has allowed Iran to secure critical supply lines and further its goal of creating a land corridor connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean. These moves have heightened tensions with U.S. allies in the region and reinforced Iran’s position as a central player in Syria’s ongoing conflict. |
Impact of U.S. Withdrawal | The decision to reduce U.S. troop presence under the Trump administration created a strategic vacuum that other powers, including Russia and Iran, were quick to exploit. Kurdish forces were left vulnerable to Turkish offensives, forcing them to retreat and relinquish key territories. This withdrawal disrupted the fragile balance of power in northeastern Syria, altering the dynamics of local governance and exposing civilian populations to heightened risks of displacement and violence. |
ISIS Resurgence Risks | Although ISIS lost its territorial stronghold, the absence of a robust stabilization strategy in liberated areas has left them susceptible to extremist resurgence. Detention facilities holding ISIS fighters, often managed by overstretched Kurdish forces, pose ongoing security risks, with periodic jailbreaks underscoring the fragility of these arrangements. The lack of governance and economic recovery in these regions continues to fuel instability. |
Geopolitical Implications | Trump’s policies in Syria highlighted a broader recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing short-term gains over multilateral commitments. This approach emboldened rivals like Russia and Iran while leaving allies questioning the reliability of U.S. leadership. The normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states added complexity to the regional order, reshaping alliances and rivalries. Syria remains a focal point for these shifting dynamics, with long-term implications for global power balances. |
The situation of the Syrian Kurds and their militia forces has reached a critical turning point within the broader context of Syria’s prolonged conflict and the shifting geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. The future of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a key player in the struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS), is now a matter of intense debate among regional and international actors. The fate of the SDF is interwoven with Syria’s territorial integrity, Turkey’s security concerns, the United States’ military strategy, and the aspirations of the Kurdish population for greater autonomy.
Origins and Evolution of the SDF
The Syrian Democratic Forces were established in October 2015 as a coalition of militia groups dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). The group quickly rose to prominence due to its decisive role in combating ISIS, liberating vast swathes of territory in northeastern Syria. This territorial expansion placed the SDF in control of critical resources, including oil fields, agricultural land, and water infrastructure. Backed militarily and financially by the United States, the SDF emerged as a cornerstone of Washington’s strategy to defeat ISIS and stabilize the region.
However, the SDF’s close association with the YPG has drawn the ire of Turkey, which views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a designated terrorist organization responsible for decades of insurgency within Turkish borders. This connection has rendered the SDF’s position precarious, as it navigates between international support, local governance responsibilities, and the persistent threat of Turkish military action.
Turkey’s Geopolitical Calculations
Turkey’s involvement in Syria is driven by a combination of security imperatives and broader regional ambitions. Ankara’s primary concern lies in preventing the establishment of a Kurdish autonomous region along its southern border, which it fears could serve as a launchpad for PKK operations. To this end, Turkey has launched multiple military incursions into northern Syria, targeting YPG strongholds and establishing a buffer zone under its control.
Ankara has consistently opposed U.S. support for the SDF, viewing it as a betrayal of NATO solidarity. Turkish officials have also demanded the withdrawal of foreign fighters from SDF ranks and the disbandment of Kurdish militias as prerequisites for any political settlement. Despite these demands, the SDF remains a formidable force, complicating Turkey’s efforts to impose its security agenda in northern Syria.
The Role of the United States
The United States’ involvement in Syria has significantly shaped the trajectory of the SDF. Washington’s support for the group was initially rooted in the practical need for a reliable ground force to counter ISIS. This partnership enabled the SDF to achieve significant military victories, culminating in the liberation of Raqqa, the de facto capital of ISIS, in 2017.
However, the U.S. has struggled to articulate a coherent long-term policy for its presence in Syria. While successive administrations have emphasized the importance of counterterrorism and regional stability, they have failed to address the broader political challenges facing the SDF, including its strained relationship with Turkey and its uncertain future within a unified Syria. The construction of a new U.S. military base near Ain al-Arab (Kobani) underscores Washington’s ongoing commitment to maintaining a foothold in the region, even as it seeks to balance competing priorities and manage tensions with Ankara.
🪖NEW US MILITARY BASE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEAR ALEPPO IN NORTHERN SYRIA
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) January 2, 2025
The US-led international coalition has begun constructing a new military base near the city of Ain al-Arab in eastern Aleppo province, northern Syria. https://t.co/8PtsaRHcuZ pic.twitter.com/iNxC8ud0i2
Integration into the Syrian Armed Forces
One of the most contentious issues in current negotiations is the proposed integration of SDF fighters into the Syrian Armed Forces. Syria’s transitional government, led by Defense Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra, has insisted that all armed groups must operate under a unified national command. This stance reflects the government’s broader objective of reasserting sovereignty over the entirety of Syrian territory.
Kurdish leaders, however, have expressed reservations about full integration, citing concerns over the erosion of their autonomy and the loss of the decentralized governance structures they have established in northeastern Syria. SDF commander Mazloum Abdi has proposed a compromise, envisioning the SDF as a semi-autonomous military bloc within the broader framework of the Syrian state. This proposal has been met with skepticism by Damascus and outright opposition from Turkey, which views any form of Kurdish autonomy as a direct threat to its national security.
Socioeconomic Dimensions
The regions under SDF control are home to a diverse population, including Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, and other minority groups. These areas have benefited from relative stability and economic activity compared to other parts of war-torn Syria. However, the reliance on oil revenues and international aid has made the region vulnerable to external pressures. Economic sanctions, coupled with the ongoing conflict, have strained local resources and hindered efforts to rebuild infrastructure and provide essential services.
The integration of these regions into the Syrian state presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, reintegration could facilitate the equitable distribution of resources and access to national infrastructure. On the other hand, it risks undermining the localized governance structures that have provided a measure of stability and inclusivity.
Regional Implications and the Path Forward
The future of the Syrian Kurds and the SDF is inextricably linked to the broader dynamics of the Middle East. The involvement of external actors such as Russia and Iran further complicates the situation, as both countries pursue their strategic interests in Syria. Russia, in particular, has positioned itself as a mediator, leveraging its influence over the Syrian government to shape the outcome of negotiations. Iran, meanwhile, views the SDF as a potential obstacle to its goal of establishing a land corridor linking Tehran to the Mediterranean.
Any resolution to the Kurdish question must address the legitimate security concerns of Turkey, the sovereignty aspirations of the Syrian government, and the autonomy goals of the Kurdish population. This delicate balancing act requires sustained diplomatic engagement, trust-building measures, and a commitment to upholding international law.
Strategic Alliances and Emerging Geopolitical Realignments in the Syrian Conflict
The Syrian conflict has become a focal point for a wide array of intersecting geopolitical interests, as international and regional actors seek to consolidate their influence in an increasingly fragmented landscape. The theater of this conflict is marked not only by military maneuvers but also by economic strategies, technological innovations, and diplomatic overtures that redefine power dynamics. This expanded analysis examines emerging players, untapped dimensions, and the intricate web of alliances reshaping the regional balance of power, offering a comprehensive look at an evolving geopolitical labyrinth.
One transformative trend in this arena is the recalibration of alliances among both state and non-state actors. The involvement of nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates has moved beyond traditional peripheral roles to a more direct influence, demonstrated by their substantial economic initiatives. Reconstruction projects, focused on critical infrastructure such as transportation and telecommunications, are being used as instruments of soft power. These projects also create dependencies, subtly integrating Syria into the Gulf’s strategic orbit. This is particularly evident in their discreet funding of humanitarian efforts tied to political outcomes, such as stabilization programs that reinforce specific factions within contested regions.
Beyond Gulf influence, the shadow of private military contractors (PMCs) continues to loom large over the conflict. These entities operate with unprecedented autonomy, often obscured from public scrutiny. Recent investigative reports have revealed the deployment of PMCs from Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and even sub-Saharan Africa—a stark contrast to the more well-documented involvement of Russia’s Wagner Group. These groups are not merely conducting tactical operations but are also embedded in strategic advisory roles, shaping the policies of local militias and political councils. Their presence underscores a global trend where private entities increasingly act as quasi-sovereign actors in conflict zones.
Simultaneously, technological innovation is reshaping the battlefield in ways that defy traditional doctrines of warfare. Autonomous drones, paired with artificial intelligence, are enabling smaller groups to conduct highly targeted operations, often with devastating efficiency. Real-time data analytics, powered by machine learning algorithms, allows for predictive modeling of enemy movements, providing an edge in operational planning. This shift has not only altered military strategies but also introduced an arms race among factions to acquire and deploy these technologies. The implications extend beyond the battlefield, influencing political negotiations where technological superiority often translates into increased leverage.
Economic entanglement adds another layer of complexity to the conflict. Iran’s strategy of embedding itself within Syria’s economic framework highlights how non-military means can achieve strategic depth. Iranian-backed initiatives to control key agricultural zones and energy production facilities illustrate a long-term vision aimed at embedding Tehran’s influence into the economic lifeblood of Syria. Meanwhile, China’s cautious but growing investments in Syrian infrastructure—framed within the Belt and Road Initiative—signal Beijing’s interest in using Syria as a logistical hub for broader regional ambitions. These economic strategies are not isolated; they intersect with political and military objectives, creating a multidimensional chessboard where every move carries significant consequences.
Moreover, the role of international institutions and legal frameworks cannot be overlooked. The conflict’s evolving nature challenges the traditional application of international law, particularly concerning state sovereignty and the rights of self-determination. Precedents from other post-conflict regions, such as the Balkans and sub-Saharan Africa, provide lessons on how international mechanisms might address similar disputes in Syria. Yet, the Syrian context—with its overlapping spheres of influence and competing narratives—resists simple analogies, demanding innovative approaches to conflict resolution that account for its unique geopolitical configuration.
The sociopolitical dynamics within Syria also merit closer scrutiny. The Kurdish population, while often portrayed as a monolithic entity, is far from homogeneous. Internal divisions—rooted in tribal affiliations, generational differences, and ideological splits—complicate efforts to present a unified front in negotiations. These divisions are further exacerbated by external pressures, as various international players seek to co-opt specific factions to advance their agendas. A detailed examination of these dynamics reveals how localized governance structures under the SDF have evolved in response to both internal challenges and external interventions.
Additionally, the environmental impact of the conflict introduces a largely overlooked but increasingly critical dimension. The destruction of agricultural land, contamination of water resources, and collapse of waste management systems have created long-term challenges for rebuilding Syria’s socio-economic fabric. These environmental issues have not only exacerbated humanitarian crises but have also become strategic tools, with control over resources often dictating territorial dominance. Efforts to address these challenges must integrate environmental considerations into broader reconstruction and stabilization strategies.
Finally, the interplay of soft power and cultural diplomacy has begun to shape the narrative landscape of the Syrian conflict. Media campaigns, cultural exchanges, and educational initiatives are being employed by various actors to influence public opinion both within Syria and globally. These efforts aim to legitimize political claims, undermine rivals, and build international coalitions. For instance, Turkey’s sponsorship of cultural programs in northern Syria serves to bolster its image as a protector of Sunni communities while subtly reinforcing its geopolitical ambitions.
The Syrian conflict’s complexity lies not only in its immediate violence but also in the layers of influence, strategy, and consequence that extend far beyond its borders. As non-state actors, regional powers, and global entities continue to interact within this volatile arena, the traditional paradigms of conflict and resolution are being fundamentally redefined. This evolving landscape demands sustained, nuanced analysis to untangle the intricate web of interests that have come to characterize one of the 21st century’s most consequential crises.
Donald Trump’s Geopolitical Calculations and Their Impact on Syria
Donald Trump’s presidency not only disrupted traditional U.S. foreign policy paradigms but also left an indelible mark on the geopolitical fabric of the Middle East, with Syria serving as a focal point for these transformations. The administration’s decisions on military strategy, diplomatic maneuvers, and economic sanctions significantly altered the balance of power in the region, setting the stage for far-reaching consequences.
Military Strategy: The Implications of U.S. Withdrawal
Trump’s decision to drastically reduce U.S. troop levels in Syria represented a pivotal shift in American military policy. Framed as part of a broader effort to end “endless wars,” this withdrawal created an immediate power vacuum, particularly in northeastern Syria, where U.S.-allied Kurdish forces had played a crucial role in dismantling ISIS’ territorial control. The sudden absence of American troops exposed the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to Turkish offensives, forcing them to cede key territories and recalibrate their strategies for survival.
Turkey’s military incursions, enabled in part by U.S. withdrawal, aimed to establish a buffer zone along its southern border. Ankara’s objectives extended beyond addressing security concerns over Kurdish militias, which it equates with the PKK, to reshaping demographics in northern Syria by resettling Syrian refugees. These incursions destabilized the region further, displacing tens of thousands of civilians and exacerbating humanitarian challenges.
Economic Warfare: The Caesar Act and Its Fallout
The Trump administration’s implementation of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act in 2020 marked a new phase of economic pressure against the Assad regime. Targeting entities involved in Syria’s reconstruction, the sanctions aimed to cripple the regime’s ability to rebuild war-torn areas and maintain its grip on power. While the sanctions succeeded in intensifying economic hardship for the regime, they also had unintended consequences. Humanitarian organizations struggled to navigate the complex restrictions, delaying aid delivery to vulnerable populations and compounding the suffering of ordinary Syrians.
The sanctions’ broader economic impact reverberated across Syria’s neighbors, including Lebanon and Jordan, as cross-border trade and financial networks became collateral damage. This economic strain fueled regional instability, highlighting the interconnected nature of Middle Eastern economies and the challenges of isolating a single regime without broader repercussions.
Diplomatic Repercussions: Transactional Relationships with Regional Powers
Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy reshaped the United States’ relationships with key players in the Syrian conflict, particularly Turkey and Russia. The administration’s inconsistent messaging—oscillating between confrontational rhetoric and conciliatory gestures—often left allies and adversaries alike uncertain of U.S. intentions. For instance, Trump’s public support for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan contrasted sharply with the imposition of sanctions following Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems.
Russia, meanwhile, capitalized on U.S. retrenchment to solidify its role as a dominant power broker in Syria. Moscow’s support for the Assad regime—through military intervention, diplomatic backing, and reconstruction aid—enabled it to expand its influence across the Middle East. The Trump administration’s relative disengagement from multilateral peace efforts allowed Russia to assert leadership in forums such as the Astana talks, sidelining U.S. interests in shaping Syria’s future.
The ISIS Dilemma: Incomplete Stabilization Efforts
While the territorial defeat of ISIS was a significant achievement under Trump’s presidency, the lack of a comprehensive stabilization strategy for liberated areas left them vulnerable to extremist resurgence. The reliance on Kurdish forces to manage detention facilities for ISIS fighters presented a precarious solution, with sporadic jailbreaks underscoring the fragility of these arrangements. The absence of long-term planning to address governance, economic recovery, and security in former ISIS territories remains a glaring gap in U.S. policy.
The Oil Factor: Resource Control and Strategic Footprints
Trump’s focus on securing Syria’s oil fields in Deir ez-Zor and other regions reflected a transactional view of U.S. involvement. By maintaining a limited military presence to oversee these resources, the administration aimed to deny ISIS access to vital revenue streams while asserting a degree of leverage over the Assad regime and its backers. However, critics argued that this approach prioritized resource control over humanitarian and stabilization goals, leaving local populations to grapple with the consequences of prolonged conflict and neglect.
Long-Term Implications and Geopolitical Shifts
Trump’s policies in Syria underscored a broader recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing short-term, tangible outcomes over long-standing commitments to multilateralism and regional stability. This shift has emboldened rival powers, such as Iran, which has deepened its entrenchment in Syria through military, economic, and political means. Tehran’s influence, manifested in its support for proxy militias and infrastructure projects, poses a significant challenge to U.S. and allied interests in the region.
The enduring effects of Trump’s Syria policy extend beyond the Middle East. The perception of U.S. disengagement has prompted allies in Europe and Asia to reassess their reliance on American leadership, exploring alternative partnerships and security arrangements. At the same time, the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states, facilitated by the Trump administration, have added a new layer of complexity to the regional order, reshaping alliances and rivalries.
In conclusion, Donald Trump’s geopolitical calculations in Syria exemplify the interplay of military, economic, and diplomatic strategies in a highly contested arena. While his administration’s policies achieved certain tactical objectives, their broader consequences have left an indelible mark on the region, shaping the trajectory of the Syrian conflict and influencing the global balance of power for years to come.
It is important to learn about the Kurds in Syria and about the creation of a Kurdish state in general. Turkey and Iran are reacting to this scenario because they will lose territory and Iran will lose the access it had to the Mediterranean.
Turkey protests and asks for NATO solidarity when it violates Greece’s borders and the threat of war every day! For Greece, everything will be judged by the negotiations on Ukraine and the deposits of the Eastern Mediterranean. Those around and behind President Trump in the photo have $12 trillion in market capitalization
They supported him why? Tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico immediately began and will also apply to China. They demand cheap energy, fuel, mining, rare earths and the expulsion of illegal immigrants, more U.S. production and skilled workers. The share of defense products will grow, but with new companies producing them at a fraction of the cost of the big ones.