I’ve just read an article about planning nuclear power for a “post-Trump world” I’m wondering how many people are actually doing just that – planning for a “post Trump world.” Well, Donald Trump isn’t one of them. He’s got a pretty good plan for re-election in 2028. Never mind the fact that the USA Constitution forbids a President from having a third term in office. Heck, by 2028 there won’t be an American Constitution if Trump is still in office.
One way or another, I’d bet that Trump won’t be in office for that third term. By 2028, the apparently dim-witted American public might just not vote for Donald Trump, however colourful and entertaining he might be. Or the Republicans might have had enough, and somehow kicked him out in the meantime. Or some more dramatic events might have made him lose his grip on power – a nuclear war? He might even be in gaol – though I guess that’s a silly left-wing fantasy. Or even the seemingly immortally healthy Donald might get sick, or even die.
I just hope and pray that he is not assassinated. That would turn him into a martyr. A saint? As a recovered Catholic, I do think kindly of my old church. I just can’t imagine that current Catholicism could stomach the idea of Saint Donald Trump.
But anyway, I digress. And indeed this whole post is a digression. But to try to get to the point – what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world? It seems that only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz has denounced the USA/Israel’s illegal attack on Iran. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in January, briefly saw through Donald Trump, but by March, Carney had second thoughts, and fell into line in the conga dance behind him. The UK wavered and waffled, but ended up supporting the war. Confusion reigns in the EU. As for Australia – words fail me, as the ruling so-called Labor Party wriggles about, trying to deny that it supports the USA/Israel war. Twas so nice of Albanese to present Trump with a pretty little statue-thing of an AUKUS submarine.
It’s not just the war on Iran. It’s the support for Israel’s genocide. It’s the spectacle over two years, of politicians giving Trump standing ovations, smiling happily as they shake hands with this deranged, ignorant, sociopathic President of the USA. Surely they could manage mere politeness, and not a complete vision of fawning servility.
And when it all goes to shit, as it surely will, what will be their legacy? Will they be remembered as leaders of insight and integrity? Will they be remembered at all. Most likely, they’ll be gone and forgotten after the next election.
Let’s just remember, that pathetic lying confidence man, Trump, could not have done so much damage, so much harm, caused all that suffering, without their support.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Several sites suggest that the trumper still has close to 40% approval rating – admittedly down from 50% at his inauguration.
Still, a very worrying statistic given what he is doing in the Middle East and his own country.
Back in the days of old English to trump meant to fart, so hopefully that will be his legacy.
If, as many suspect, Trump’s mental capacity and moral standard are somewhat lacking, we really need to look at those who are behind him.
Trump is the front guy.
Don’t look to hard, they were standing right with him at inauguration!
An interesting article none the less….
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/03/10/americas-war-of-choice-is-israels-war-of-necessity/
The third world war is under way,even if the fucking morons in Washington are oblivious, and every corner of the globe will be gravely affected .Given most of the countries of earth are led by professional liars and incompetents, including ours,the outlook is dire.
Get your affairs in order, be kind to others,and good luck.
Expresses my frustrations to a Tee.
“And when it all goes to shit…” ??? Mate, it all went to shit a decade ago!
By the way, thanks to Heather..
Harry,
you may be right about WW3. To make sure this doesn’t escalate to a world war, 3rd party countries would need to make it clear that they are not going to take part. Labor has, contrary to this, given support and joined in with the aggressors in their illegal war, almost as quickly as possible.
Labor and the Coalition are trying to justify this action by claiming Iran attacked us – their supposed evidence being the two arson attacks allegedly organized by Iran. What is the evidence for blaming Iran? All we have is Albanese, Burgess’s words and, according to commercial media, a tip off from Mossad; what could possibly go wrong? Who benefitted from those attacks – Benjamin Mileikowski, Aka Netanyahu.
The proclamation of the Iranian Guard as a terrorist group came just before Israel launched another unprovoked attack on Iran last June, was it a coincidence or collusion? Why haven’t we been shown any evidence? We’ve been shown nothing at all, but we’re being expected to take this allegation as a given and accept our country tossed into an illegal war on their word for it.
Iran hasn’t attacked another country for 300 years, but Israel and the USA went rogue attacking other countries at will and on a whim, years, arguably decades, before this unprovoked attack.
Noel rightly reminded us of Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians. It is those same leaders that ignored, gave political cover for, and even enabled with weapons trade, Israel’s genocide that are crab walking their armed forces towards joining in on the side of the aggressors. Here we have Labor being the worst of the lot, racing towards offering up our youth as cannon fodder for Israel and the USA’s illegal war.
Disclaimer: I have written as Gonggongche for a couple of years now, but as Harry points out this is heading in a very bad direction, opinions, sentiments and impressions will become extremely divided and intense. I don’t want to risk the Australian Chinese diaspora being tagged with my opinions in anyone’s mind – I’m not Chinese, so I’m taking a moniker more indicative of my anglo-celtic-saxon heritage.
Perhaps the optimal solution for TACO (Trumpery Always Chickens Out) Trumpery (worthless finery, rubbish, nonsense; showy but worthless, shallow) would be to die quietly in his sleep.
Then NO-GO-ALBO could withdraw all military personnel back to Australia, the duplicity of the LABOR propaganda could be replaced with ”truth telling”, and the attraction of David Shoebridge & the Greens as the preferred government representing the best interests of the Australian voters could be mildly reduced.
Which political party is worse since 1945??
1) The LIARBRAL$ for playing follow Uncle Sam into every imperialist war for control of the natural resources of the target country by American multinational corporations while the costs of Australian involvement in the war are borne by Australian taxpayers?
2) The LABOR party for playing follow Uncle Sam into every imperialist war for control of the natural resources of the target country by American multinational corporations while the costs of Australian involvement in the war are borne by Australian taxpayers?
3) The NOtional$ party for demanding that regional centres become a genuine, authentic, original 19th century slums to obfuscate their failure to provide any infrastructure expenditure for the 35% of voters living in regional electorates??
4) The Teals & INDEPENDENTS for being too few in number to form a Parliamentary majority and so prevent Australian involvement in foreign wars??
5) The Greens for wanting Australia to become a neutral middle sized world power that pursued trade objectives rather than spend indefinitely on the fairy tale of ”19th Century Imperial Grandeur”??
As a Small aside Cocky, We see that Caravan has been given the task of Leading the Gnats into eternal oblivion.If we thought the so called ‘COALition couldn’t get any worse,we should be disabused.
What a shower of shit.And all this while we have a vacillating,gutless and dishonest Labor full of careerists and has beens. Politics in this country has never been worse.
@ Harry lime: This election clearly demonstrates that the NOtional$ are totally irrelevant to the needs of Australia, that looking for ”Reds under the beds” has distracted otherwise thinking primary producers from the community needs of government health & education services, all weather driveable roads, rail services for freight & voters plus high speed Internet connectivity between towns & across paddocks for the machinery.
NONE of these 21st century necessary ”innovations” are on any NOtional$ schedule. Rather, politicians are pre-selected for any reason other than ability, with preference for those males having the picadilloes of adultery, alcoholism, philandering & self-serving their personal pecuniary interests. Never let it be said that NOtional$ represent the best interests of the Australian voters.
Thommo, you were never taken for a Chinese scribbler, despite your Oriental handle. However, point taken, those within the diaspora may have thought otherwise.
Facile as it may seem, may one inquire as to why you chose to write under a Chinese pseudonym? I suppose you could ask the same of me, as to why do I pretend to be a marsupial… disclosure, a Spanish-speaking partner years ago referred to me as ‘canguro flaco’, the skinny kangaroo, however, with the passage of time and no longer burning massive amounts of energy via manual labour, the moniker should now more correctly read ‘canguro gordo.’
Canguro, would you like the long explanation or the short version?
Whatever it takes, Thommo. No rush. 🙂
When I started writing on MSN as Hans Bjelke it was in the lead up to 2022 election and knew I would be butting heads with right wing supporters. I expected bullying in the beginning, but was surprised that it came in the form of a group trying to make out that I couldn’t write a cohesive sentence in English. That made me wonder what would happen if I were to write under a handle that suggested I was from a minority group that might attract the attention of racists.
Didn’t want to use some name that would be a racist act in itself, nor an Arabic name as was worried I’d get drawn into saying something out of ignorance that was offensive to Arabs. I know lots of Chinese people, some very well, so I was confident I’d be able to avoid saying something offensive to a Chinese person.
So, the handle Gonggongche began as an experiment, I can’t remember whether it was first on The Guardian and then later on Crikey or vice-versa. Useless idea, as it wouldn’t be possible to tell if there was a difference in how my commentary was treated anyway, unless I said the same thing, at the same time under two different handles.
Thanks Thommo, as we all know, as reminded by Randy Newman, it’s a jungle out there. Play safe would be the best bet.
@Thommo:
Well bugger me if I figured you was just a marxist revolutionary from Wollongong.
Noel Wauchope raises a serious concern: the tendency to personalise global crises around a single political figure while overlooking the wider systems of power that enable those outcomes. A stronger understanding emerges when both elements are held together — individual leadership and the structural forces surrounding it.
First, it is worth acknowledging the core of Noel’s argument. It is reasonable to question why so much responsibility is attributed solely to Donald Trump when modern geopolitics is shaped by networks of governments, alliances, defence industries, intelligence institutions, media narratives, and economic interests. Democracies do not move in a vacuum; they move through coalitions and institutional momentum. In that sense, Noel’s critique of Western leaders aligning with Washington deserves careful attention.
There is also historical precedent for this pattern. Strategic alignment with the United States has long shaped the foreign policy choices of allied governments, including those led by figures such as Anthony Albanese, Pedro Sánchez, and Mark Carney. These leaders operate within security frameworks such as AUKUS security pact and NATO, where strategic loyalty, military cooperation, and intelligence sharing strongly shape diplomatic behaviour.
Seen from this wider lens, Trump did not invent the geopolitical architecture that surrounds him. That architecture existed long before his presidency and will continue afterwards. Leaders often find themselves balancing domestic political pressures, alliance commitments, defence contracts, and economic interests tied to military infrastructure — including nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries.
However, the other side of the analysis is equally important. Political leadership still matters enormously. Individual leaders influence tone, norms, and the boundaries of what becomes acceptable in public discourse. The rhetorical style and governing approach of figures such as Donald Trump can accelerate trends that were already present within institutions: polarisation, distrust in democratic norms, and the willingness to use force in foreign policy.
So the more productive question may not be “Who is to blame?” but rather “How do systems and leaders interact to produce these outcomes?”
An Integral Lens (WHO / WHAT / WHERE / WHEN / WHY / HOW)
WHO
The actors extend far beyond one president. They include elected leaders across Western democracies, defence institutions, intelligence agencies, corporate interests tied to weapons manufacturing, and media systems that frame global narratives.
WHAT
What we are witnessing is a convergence of security alliances, geopolitical competition, and domestic political incentives. These forces reinforce one another, often narrowing the range of policy options available to leaders.
WHERE
The tensions arise within an interconnected global order shaped by military alliances, nuclear deterrence doctrines, and economic dependencies that stretch across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific.
WHEN
This moment sits within a longer historical arc: the post–Cold War order is fragmenting, while new technological, economic, and military transitions are underway. Periods like this historically produce instability and strong political personalities.
WHY
Governments frequently prioritise alliance cohesion and national security narratives, even when doing so creates ethical or humanitarian tensions. Political survival, economic interests, and perceived strategic threats all play a role.
HOW
The real leverage for change rarely lies in focusing on one individual. It lies in democratic accountability: public scrutiny of alliances, transparent debate about military commitments, and the strengthening of institutions capable of constraining executive power.
A Broader Reflection
If history teaches anything, it is that societies rarely collapse because of a single leader. They falter when institutions weaken, when public discourse fragments, and when citizens disengage from democratic oversight.
In that sense, Noel’s central warning deserves attention: leaders who quietly align themselves with damaging policies cannot escape responsibility simply by attributing everything to one controversial figure.
But an equally important insight is this: systems that concentrate power, normalise militarised thinking, and reward short-term political advantage will keep producing similar outcomes — regardless of who occupies the presidency.
The deeper challenge, therefore, is not merely surviving a “post-Trump world”.
It is building political cultures and institutions resilient enough that no single leader — of any ideology — can steer entire nations toward destructive paths without meaningful resistance.
Thank you, Paul Richards. I really appreciate your analysis. Your mention of “the real leverage” is so important. When we consider World War 1. That became pretty much inevitable, with military alliances and great armies all lined up for a fight – which was then sparked off by one random incident.
Still, I do think that individuals matter enormously, I get so fed up with the language of journalism – “war came” “war broke out”. No – it didn’t just break out, like some weather event.
Somebody started it.
The world went through a short time of relative sanity at one stage, as Nikita Kruschev and Ronald Reagan talked with each other, developed some trust. It is not well known that Ronald Reagan had had lengthy discussion with Dr Helen Caldicott, prior to this meeting. Here’s a case of 3 individuals having a profound influence on international politics.
Then there’s the case of the Nazi period in Germany. Sure, all sorts of considerations led to this. But I don’t think it could have all happened, without Adolf Hitler. Apart from Hitler’s own single-minded obsession, he surrounded himself with other extraordinary individuals, with their own hatreds and obsessions. Not very competent men, but also with a fanatical loyalty to Hitler.
Uncannily, we now have a situation with a different kind of deranged leader. And Trump has surrounded himself with incompetent men with their own hatreds and obsessions, and also with that loyalty to the great leader. I don’t think that the current mess could have happened without Trump.
Noel, your Hitler point is valid, but this is a hugely complex matter that is influenced by any number of variables. As Paul Richards put it, “individual leadership and the structural forces surrounding it.”
Hitler could only rise to power in a Germany that had already been weakened by forces both internal and external.
That fact sheds light on your original question — “what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world?”
Trump rose to power due to inherent weaknesses in liberal democracy.
It’s not necessary to justify that assertion.
A dangerous clown has twice been elected president of the US.
That could only occur due to a weakness in the system.
And as you rightly point out, the other leaders of the major liberal democracies are waffling, wavering, and falling into line.
Because they suffer from the same structural forces and weaknesses.
The common feature here is liberal democracy.
Those managing the entire liberal order are shaking their heads, clutching their pearls, and muttering — how did this happen?
Well, it happened because the liberal order believed its own bullshit.
For centuries now they told themselves, and the world, that liberal democracy is the pinnacle of social development.
That there is nothing better.
That nothing else comes even close.
So convinced have they been of this nonsense, that they see it as a moral duty to impose liberal democracy by force, on those who choose alternatives.
They justify this force, this brutality, and the slaughter that ensues, by reducing any opposition to sub-human status.
The problem is not Trump.
The problem is not the leaders you referred to who waffle and waver and fall into line.
The problem is liberal democracy, and until we walk away from that, the brutality and slaughter will continue.
Noel W., perhaps you could correct Khrushchev (sic) and replace him with Gorbachev. Not that Ronny listened…
Noel said “I don’t think that the current mess could have happened without Trump.”
Of course it could.
The current mess has been going on for over a century.
Just ask the people of Latin America. Or the Balkans. Or Africa.
Mark Twain wrote about the murderous mess in the Philippines in 1901 — “To the Person Sitting in Darkness”.
The difference now is that we are more aware of the mess due to advances in information technology.
Mark Twain’s darkness has lifted a little, but we have a long way to go.
Liberal democracy cannot bring peace because of the financial system that it created.
A financial system that facilitates greed and exploitation.
Just as it was designed to do.
The global financial system and liberal democracy exist now in a symbiotic relationship.
The two systems depend on each other for survival.
If you genuinely want peace, respect, cooperation and mutual prosperity, you don’t have to stage a revolution.
Just dismantle the financial system, piece by piece.
Thank goodness for the existence of tradesmen, like the carpenter Steve Davis for instance, who continues to hammer the points, one nail at time.
Ha ha, thanks Kanga, but it feels more like I’m dismantling the Harbour Bridge with a nail-file.
🙂
Trump= Cartman- is a schoolboy with live matches. I think his millieu, the environment he came from that shaped him and many, many Americans, is to blame.
The highlight would be the McCarthyite deception leading ito the Vietnam disaster and the sense that many were too brainwashed in an ongoing way (like Australians?), to escape the bubble that corrupted culture imposed- they’ve become isolated from reality, like their pals the Israelis.
BTW, sad to see that Jurgen Habermas has finally passed away.Several other legewnds ican tinkof are also close to the edge.
No excuses for Trump, but he is also the product of a culture gone wrong.
Blah blah – how can you blame “liberal democracy”. It’s an intangible idea – with probably a lot of different shades of meaning for a lot of people. Individual persons are real, not waffly ideas. Some individuals can make decisions of world importance.
In 1983, Stanislav Petrov decided not to carry out the order to launch the Soviet nuclear missile system. I would call his action an example of rationality and integrity. Yes, Phyl Prior, you corrected me, thank you.. It was Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan with a landmark deal in 1987 to scrap intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
Still, these were individuals who made such an impact on world affairs. Both in Germany in the 1930s, and now with the USA and Trump, circumstances favour the rise of fascism, – but it wouldn’t be nearly as bad, without the presence of these extraordinary deranged psychopathic individuals – Hitler and Trump. Petrov, Gorbachev, and Reagan -showed integrity. Integrity is the quality so sorely lacking in the so-called leaders that we now allow to make decisions. Their motivations are not the general well-being, but their desire to look important and keep their bums on their political seats.
We lack real leaders, individuals of integrity. Alfred Tennyson said it long ago, in his poem “Sir Galahad” – “My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure”
Noel, you’ve illustrated my point.
I did not deny the role of individuals, in fact I mentioned Paul’s “individual leadership and the structural forces around it”.
You say here “Both in Germany in the 1930s, and now with the USA and Trump, circumstances favour the rise of fascism,…”
Which was the point I was making.
The problem we have is that if we concentrate, as you are doing, on the individual personalities that exploit those historical circumstances, we lose sight of the circumstances and blame the individual.
What are the historical circumstances that produced Trump?
Weaknesses in liberal democracy.
Why are the leaders of the West not pulling Trump into line?
Weaknesses in liberal democracy.
What is it that sustains liberal democracy?
A financial system that facilitates greed and exploitation.
Just as it was designed to do.
Steve. Of course you are right. But so am I. You say “Why are the leaders of the West not pulling Trump into line?
Weaknesses in liberal democracy.”
The leaders of the West show themselves to be truly weak, lacking in integrity. These individuals are not stupid. They see what is happening, but make their individual choices to fall into line. An example – Penny Wong. Watch her wobbling and weaving. She must get a sore bum, sitting on that fence all the time.
Alas, individual fear of looking “weak” seems at all times to outweigh common sense. Example – Anthony Albanese signing up to AUKUS in a hurry. Of course, one could argue that this fear is a broadly cultural thing, so that many individuals vote for men who look tough, as against looking truly intelligent.
Hi Noel,
you are too kind. Penny Wong is not sitting on the fence, she comes across as a stooge for Israel; she chose her side a long time ago.