Since the war began the West has time after time transgressed their own red lines in what has become a continuous escalation of military support for Ukraine, and anxious probing of Russia’s red lines.
Here a look at some of the latest examples of ongoing and what might be coming contributions to Ukraine. In the apparently unending sequence of western leaders first rejecting Ukraine demands, then realising that Ukraine might be in dire straits, and therefore persuading themselves to dare escalate after all. Fearing evidently that the U.S. led proxy war might be lost, and that all previous help would have been in vain.
 
ATACMS
Among Ukraine’s demands is the long time clamouring for another kind of a long-range missile that can be fired from the HIMARS and MLRS they already have.
On November 17, 2024 President Biden finally caved in to Ukraine’s clamouring for authorization to strike Russia proper with ATACMS missiles, although for the time being limited to strikes in the Kursk region.
No wonder perhaps that a beleaguered Biden, humiliated in his Afghanistan withdrawal, involved in a Ukraine proxy war with no clear end and conflicts and wars in the Near, Middle and Far East, and clearly afraid of having to admit another defeat, again crosses his own red lines in relation to Russia.
“A Telegram channel affiliated with the Ukrainian military posted a video Tuesday [November 19] that it says shows U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles being fired from an undisclosed location in Ukraine.” (AP). Apparently, a volley of 6 ATACMS were fired at a location in the Kursk region.
The ATACMS missile has almost the same size (4meter long) and weight (1300-1700 kilograms) as the Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, but it is ground-based and can be fired from a modified launch pod mounted on a HIMARS or MLRS.
Several different versions have been produced over time. From MGM-140A, MGM-140B to MGM-168A with different warheads, a range of 70 to 300 km’s, and warhead of 160 to 591kg. During flight they may reach Mach 3. Meaning Russians forces only have minutes to react.
The MGM-140A version may carry 950 M74 APAM (Anti-Personnel Anti-Material submunitions), cluster munition that scatter in mid-air and able to cause destruction of personnel and light material over an area of 33,000 m2. MGM-140B carries the same submunition but only around 300, while other versions may carry Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) guided submunitions to destroy moving armoured units or stationary missile/rocket vehicles. Finally, there is a unitary warhead with higher precision, presumably resulting in less collateral damage.
“While the ATACMS does assume a ballistic arc to its target, it also performs a series of rapid and sudden turns and course corrections on the way to its aimpoint. This is a deliberate function of the ATACMS, as this seemingly erratic flight behavior makes it exceptionally difficult to track or intercept.” (militarytoday.com).
 
Illustration showing ATACMS being fired from a HIMARS vehicle, diagram of the weapon and a photo of single M74 submunition. M74 is a ball-like aerial dispersed, centrifugally armed, high-explosive, anti-personnel (AP) submunition.

Sources: Army Recognition and cat-uxo.com
 
Storm Shadows/ SCALP’s
Ukraine has long pleaded for long-range missiles, not the least to be able to strike Russia in Crimea. The UK were the first to cave in to their pleading and provide an unknown number of the so-called Storm Shadow missile, followed by France with their variant of the same missile, called SCALP (Système de Croisière Autonome à Longue Portée – Emploi Général). The missile is made by MBDA, a European consortium made up of Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo.
The Storm Shadow/ SCALP missile is a fairly long-range deep strike precision weapon, conventional armed. Used against fixed or stationary targets such as hardened bunkers and key infrastructure. Usually operated from aircrafts it is said to possess exceptional accuracy due to its advanced navigation system that combines INS (Inertial), GPS and terrain following systems. Basic specs: Weight 1300 kg, 5 meters long, with a conventional warhead of 450kg, and a range said to be around 250 km’s.
 
Looking like a submarine, this is a picture of Storm Shadow/SCALP missile mounted on an aircraft pylon (MBDA).

Source: MBDA
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/storm-shadow-scalp/
 
Ukrainian Airforce’s Soviet-era SU-24M Fencer combat aircraft have been adapted to carry this heavy missile. It has been used by the Ukrainians to strike deep behind Russia’s frontlines, and is assumed to have been used in deep strikes on infrastructure in Crimea and on the Russian navy in Sevastopol.
Eurasian Times reports that 11 Storm Shadow missiles were used in the September 13, 2023 strike on the naval port of Sevastopol, although apparently only 3 missiles slipped through Russian defences hitting a submarine and a landing ship in drydock. On September 20 Ukraine made a new attempt to strike an airbase in Crimea with 8 Storm Shadow missiles, with no missiles striking the target according to Eurasian Times. Later Ukraine struck again: “at around noon on Friday, September 22, Ukraine's Defense Forces successfully struck the Russian Black Sea Fleet Command HQ in temporarily occupied Sevastopol.” (Ukrinform).
In November 2024 Ukraine got permission from the UK to use Storm Shadow missiles to strike into Russia proper, into the region of Kursk, and on November 20, 2024, Ukraine apparently fired the first batch of Storm Shadows into that region. Territorial defense forces in Russia claims that 12 Storm Shadow missiles were launched at around 2:50 p.m. in the direction of Bryansk.
 
Taurus stand off missile
Storm Shadow /SCALP missiles and ATACMS’s have not been enough for Ukraine. For some time, they have had their eyes on the German made longer ranging missile “Lenkflugkörper Taurus KEPD-350.” About the same size as Storm Shadow/ SCALP, it may be used for even longer range precision strikes on hardened structures like bunkers etc.
MBDA describes the missile as having a range in excess of 500 km, unmatched penetration capabilities, precise and jamming resistant navigation, including terrain-following capability below 50 meters, GPS independence, with 4 separate guiding systems, and a layer counting fuse. The last characteristic means that the missile after diving vertical in the last phase, will be able penetrate layers of a bunker with hardened penetrator, counting the number of layers and voids penetrated. See illustration of the concept at https://taurus-systems.de/#penetration
The missile's physical specs: Length 5m, width about 1m, weight 1400kg, with a warhead weighing 481 kg.

Examples of Taurus target attacks:

Now why would Ukraine want Taurus missiles. It may be because the Taurus has a longer range of around 500 km, and it might also be more efficient against certain structures.
Realizing that Ukraine has been eager to attack the Kerch bridge and made several attempts to put it out of action, one might guess that Taurus missiles would be used to attack the bridge due their longer range. Of course, it would also be possible to strike into Russia itself supplementing the more primitive drone strikes carried out by Ukraine.
For this reason, the possible delivery of Taurus missiles is a very sensitive topic in Germany. While some politicians are eager to provide Ukraine with the Taurus, Chancellor Scholz and others are having serious misgivings. Just the thought of German missiles hitting somewhere in Russia make them shudder, and for now hold back. In order to somehow satisfy the Ukrainian demands it has been the suggested that technical alterations of the Taurus might limit their range to something like the Storms Shadows, in order to make sure that Russia would be out of range, but this has been met with the counter argument that it would demonstrate that Germany did not trust Ukraine.
Evidently the use of Taurus would require close German assistance. A discussion among German officers reveals the dilemma related to German support “Politicians may be concerned about the direct closed connection between Büchel [German airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz, where the US has placed nuclear weapon] and Ukraine, which could become a direct involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.”
With the German election on February 23, 2025, it is to expected that Merz of the CDU party will become Chancellor, and he has said that he would support the delivery of Taurus missiles to Ukraine under certain conditions.
But would a President Trump want Germany to escalate the war in Ukraine?
 
Russia’s ballistic response and harsh warning
The first Russian reaction to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks came almost immediately. On November 21 Dnipro in Ukraine was hit by a ballistic missile apparently fired far away from Russia’s Astrakhan region. At first the Ukraine said they had been hit by an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). Later it turned to be an intermediate range ballistic missile.
 
Clip from video supposedly showing warhead explosions from the ballistic missile attack

During a public address on the same day President Putin denied that Russia had used an ICBM, instead he said “In combat conditions, a test of Russia's new medium-range missile system was conducted. In this case, the missile was equipped with a non-nuclear payload," The medium range missile is said to have been the 9M729 Oreshnik, although the number seems to belong an older ballistic missile.
According to Putin the ballistic missile attack on Ukraine was in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia using the ATACMS and Storm Shadow missile days before. Arguing that "From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character."
Putin further warned that any escalation by the West would be followed by a decisive Russian response, and it might not be limited to Ukraine: “We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, … If anyone else doubts this, then they are wrong - there will always be a response."
 
What’s Next – apocalypse now?
President Zelensky’s first reaction “Today, Putin admitted to taking a second step this year toward escalating and expanding this war. A new ballistic missile was used. Putin struck our city of Dnipro, one of Ukraine’s largest cities. This is a clear and severe escalation in the scale and brutality of this war—a cynical violation of the UN Charter by Russia.”
Well, what did he expect…? What happened follows the muster we have seen almost since the beginning of the proxy war. Escalation and counter escalation in a growing spiral of escalations as we have shown in earlier blog essays.
True to form Zelensky is now demanding decisive reactions from the West, although that would surely get us closer to open war between Russia and the West. The danger is certainly evident.
The US DOD (Department of Defense) is apparently considering changes to the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review from 2022. With the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy (N-CWMD) Richard C. Johnson arguing: “"We are now in a world where we're facing multiple nuclear competitors, multiple states that are growing, diversifying and modernizing their nuclear arsenals and also, unfortunately, prioritizing the role that nuclear weapons play in their national security strategies."
So, what’s next. No idea, but perhaps the West is beginning to realise the dangers related to a continued escalation, and an ongoing war. Until Ukraine is bled out, to put it bluntly, or some miracle make Russia give up, or some unintended mishap or provocation leads to open war between NATO and Russia – or until the West finally demands that Ukraine must accept some kind fait accompli like a DMZ. The last possibility would of cause be the least dangerous way out of the present stalemate.
For now, apart from some desperate last-minute action from a fast-aging President Biden, we have will to wait and see what intentions and plans President Trump has in relation to Ukraine.
 

A long speech on the order of world
Early in November 2024 at 21st meeting of the so-called Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, President Vladimir Putin held a very long speech on his views of the World and World order today.
Yes, I know today the western media has an obsessive focus on president elect Donald Trump, what he is saying, what he is doing, all the time trying to second guess what he will do and what it will mean for the rest of the world. But perhaps it is almost as important to have a look at what President Putin of Russia has to say about a changing world and an emergent new world order.
Here a look at some aspects of Putin’s speech at the Valdai meeting (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75521).
 
The dissolution of a Western order
Putin argues that the existing world order is dissolving and that modern world has become increasingly unpredictable:
“There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage”
Interestingly and perhaps rather surprising to western eyes, Putin sees the west as increasingly dominated by totalitarian ideologies, while we tend to think of Russia and China as dominated by totalitarian thinking.
Putin’s argument: “Modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought … Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.”
Somehow his view of western liberal democracy as degenerating into a kind of rule by minorities and driven by identity politics seems to rhyme with the views of Donald Trump, and it may even by part of the explanation why he won of the recent election, to the surprise of whining western mainstream media.
 
The Western attempt to defeat Russia
 Putin argues that red lines have been reached in the present struggle with the West:
“The former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power … Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of “You shall not belong to anyone!” or “You're either with us or against us” has become increasingly evident.”
Putin warns that the West’s global messianism is dangerous: “The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe.”
Strong words and while many in the West believe that Putin is wrong, when he sees the present proxy fight against Russia as part of such a messianic struggle, it is in fact possible to find evidence indicating that he may be right.
 
Western hybris at the end of the cold war
“In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by … . By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed.”
Here some evidence showing that Putin may be right in his view of the West’s, and especially of cause the United States of America’s intentions and convictions.
After 1990 the U.S. realized that it had become the undisputed hegemon, the superstate, able to dominate everywhere. Intoxicated with its power it made plans for a “Pax Americana. Just listen to this:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia …
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” (pbs.org).
This is an excerpt from a Defence Planning Guidance in February 1992, a secret memorandum by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz. 
The secret Wolfowitz 1992 memorandum, now partly de-classified, also states that “after the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States may be said to be the world’s sole superpower, enjoying a predominance on the world political-military stage that is unprecedented in the last century” (Wolfowitz, National Security Archive, gwu.edu).
 
Causing conflicts today
 Similar views may underlie the conflicts we are witnessing in today’s world. To Putin “It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination.”
Putin recognizes that West has “amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system,” But instead of using their formidable achievements to strive to preserve their global hegemony, Putin argues that the West’s efforts should be directed towards “addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology.”
 
Putin’s six principles for a new world order
Looking for an alternative to the present conflicts Putin is proposing six principles that in his view ought to underpin relations in a multipolar world.
 
First principle: Open interaction
“Openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.”
 
Second principle: A polyphonic world order
 Emphasising “the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability.” Meaning that we must avoid a scenario “where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others … it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.”
Instead, one has to embrace a world system that is polyphonic “one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.” This means that in Putin’s view a UN Charter written by the victorious countries must undergo changes. Putin does not say how this is supposed to happen, except that is must be done carefully.
 
Third principle: Inclusion
Putin argues that it must be avoided that hegemonic powers believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are.  Instead, his alternative sounds almost like modern days DEI policies (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) practiced on a world of countries and peoples. Funny, seeing that DEI principles in organisations seems to day seem to be losing their attractiveness
Rather vaguely Putin argues “As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.”
 
Fourth principle: Finding security without NATO’s bloc policy
“The key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.”
Says Putin, his errand here sems to deride the bloc policy of NATO: “There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.”
To Putin NATO would have lost the only reason for its existence, when the cold war ended, but the U.S. kept it alive in order to exercise command in its zone of influence.
In fact, it was difficult to see the raison d’etre of NATO after the cold war. As we have argued in the blog “No need for NATO today, if dismantled in the 90s.”  The Soviet Union was rapidly dissolving and descending into something that could not be seen to as threat to Europe or the U.S. Nationalist militarism in Europe had long disappeared, and European political integration was seen as having a glowing future, now that the Soviet Union had disappeared and Eastern Europe was poised to participate in the European political integration. Remnants of former times only remained in the Balkans.
This is how a former CIA analyst and areas expert on Russia, with 30 years of experience, saw the time when the Iron Curtain came down: “As the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet empire began disintegrating, the opportunity to construct a post-Cold War peace was there for the taking. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev in a Feb. 9, 1990 meeting that, following the unification of Germany, NATO would expand “not one inch eastward”… It’s difficult now to describe the feeling of those halcyon days.”
No wonder therefore that Putin thinks “It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation.”
Instead, Putin is looking to the BRICS, the international organization originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, but now also including Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. Today even Turkey, a NATO member, seems eager to join.
In Putin’s view “BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.”
 
Fifth principle: Justice for all
In Putin’s view “Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues”
Here the term “Golden Billion” refers to the fringe theory that “a cabal of 1 billion global elites seeks to hoard the world's wealth and resources, leaving the rest of the planet to suffer and starve.” (npr.org).
Putin does not seem to have any clear idea of how the inequality can be alleviated or erased. “Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.”
 
Sixth Principle: A vaguely holistic view of the world
This just sems to be another variant of Putin’s main concern. This time again talking about Western arrogance, “which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively … There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.”
Again, Putin just talks vaguely of the alternative. A polycentric world, in which the West does not have a hegemonic role: “The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should be based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.” Yes, but how does he propose to achieve what he calls a normal relationship.
 
 
Realistically, we might see that hegemonic power is shifting east, to Asia and China, but this would just become a new hegemonic power, different from the existing but declining Western hegemony. It would certainly not realise Putin’s DEI concepts for countries and nations.

Perhaps not, but this is the misguided opinion voiced in the Guardian on November 7. “There is nothing but bad news for Europe in Donald Trump’s US election victory. The only question is just how bad it will get. Europeans stand to suffer strategically, economically and politically from his “America first” policies, as well as from his unpredictability and transactional approach to global affairs. The undermining of Nato, the emboldening of illiberal nationalists everywhere, a transatlantic trade war, and a battle over European regulation of US social media platforms, AI and cryptocurrencies are just some of the major risks of a second Trump presidency.” (The Guardian, November 7, 2024).
The same wailing was heard during Trump’s first period as President, meaning that Europeans still do not realise that Trump then and now may have a point or two with his America first policies and its relation to European woes.
Wonder why Europe did not realise that, given that Trump had almost the same views in 2017. To show that this was indeed the case, take a look at an English translation of essay published in Danish on January 20, 2017. That’s right 2017, almost eight years ago. But then apparently not everyone got the message at the time, neither in the US nor in certain European countries. So today we may see several replays.
Here the essay from 2017:

Trump may have a point when he trumps conventional thinking
January 20, 2017, https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/trump-may-have-a-point-when-he-trumps-conventionel-thinking

Consternation, rejection and Trump bashing
That was the general European reaction to Trump's many, partly contradictory statements in the interview he gave to Bild Zeitung and The Times.
"Schwachsinn" (stupid nonsense), " Wir müssen auf das Schlimmste gefasst sein" said the chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee, Elmar Brok, commenting on Trump's statement that "the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade."
President Hollande was a little more diplomatic in his criticism of Trump: "Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will based upon its interests and values ... It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do"
In a similar way, Chancellor Merkel reacted: "Also, ich denke, wir Europäer haben unser Schicksal selbst in der Hand." With economic strength and efficient decision-making structures, the EU can cope with the fight against terrorism, digitalization and other problems, Merkel argues. A new version of "Wir schaffen das"?
Now Europe must stand together was the keynote of many of the comments. "Dies ist jetzt die Stunde der Europäer" was the warning from Elmar Brok, because if Europe does not succeed in standing together in foreign and security policy, a new world order will emerge under Russian President Putin and President Trump.
Much of the criticism from Europe has been characterized by what the Germans would call "Überheblichkeit" (arrogance that is supremely condescending) in relation to Trump's statements.
This also applies to most media outlets, which have had an extremely critical view of Donald Trump. Trump bashing has been a popular activity, and it has also been a relatively easy matter to find cause for Trump bashing, from his boastful manner, lack of rhetorical skills, to hurried Twitter announcements and his other escapades.
One has stereotypically subscribed to what we might call common correct political opinions, in a version in which truth seems to be defined in a self-referential spiral of mutual affirmation that continues without the slightest thought ad absurdum.
On Friday, however, Donald Trump will enter as the next U.S. president, so instead of the media's parrot-like and unreflective Trump bashing, there is reason to see if there is actually some meaning in the madness.
Therefore, rather than simply repeating the almost identical criticism of Trump's view of the world, we will try to see if Trump's many, often contradictory, statements can still make sense and indicate the future direction of his presidency

Making sense of Trump's confusing statements
The interview with Trump touched on many topics, large and small, global on the one hand and personal little things on the other. Here we will try to focus on some of the overall themes as we have seen them:
America first
Partnership with Russia
NATO and US interests
Break-up in the EU, German dominance and Brexit
Fair trade or free trade

America first!
"Make America great again" was the message from Trump during the election campaign, and although it can be dismissed as a campaign slogan, it may also contain an important core of Trump's view of the world. Anything that serves the interests of the United States must be promoted and anything that in any way threatens these interests or diminishes the role of the United States in the world is problematic and must be rejected or fought.
However, Trump has not presented grand visions or long-term strategies. "For some observers, this suggests an untutored or incoherent approach to foreign policy, derived largely from news headlines and his experiences as a globetrotting businessman," but in "Le Monde Diplomatique" one can find a completely different assumption: "Donald Trump has a clear-eyed view of the world and America's place within in it — and in some respects his perceptions are far more attuned to world realities than those of well-regarded pundits and policymakers in Washington."
Therefore, one should not be seduced by Trump's lack of rhetorical skills and his incoherent speech, but rather see him as the grubby little boy who is the first to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
It can hardly be said that President Obama has had much success in his foreign policy. To a large extent in this area, he has been a weak president, weakening the United States in the face of more determined and unscrupulous players on the world stage. This applies in relation to Putin's Russia, it applies to relations with China and Syria's Assad.
Weak leaders in the United States and Europe, feeling in a kind of self-perceived and assertive sense that they at least had the right values, have largely stuck to complacent rhetoric with little consistency and little effect. They have ended up in a kind of insoluble put-in-cold storage-situation with Russia, have had immensely little influence in the Syrian conflict and apparently have no idea what to do with the refugee problem, with Africa, or all the other problems in the world for that matter.
Then comes the businessman from the outside, the man who does not follow the conventions, a man who, in his own immediate, and very undiplomatic way, names problems that are otherwise wrapped up in euphemisms.
We see it in statements about Obama's foreign policy problems. "Afghanistan is, is not going well. Nothing's going well — I guess we've been in Afghanistan almost 17 years — but you look at all of the places, now in all fairness, we haven't let our people do what they're supposed to do"
Or about the most important military priority, where Trump's answer is simply: "Isis."
Or Syria, where "we had a chance to do something when we had the line in the sand and it wasn't — nothing happened ... That was the only time — and now, it's sort of very late."
Le Monde notes: "The aim of US foreign policy in this environment is to advance America's interests above all else, and frustrate the designs of all those who seek advantage at its expense. In this competitive environment, where every government will be judged solely by what it can do to further America's interests or impede its progress, Trump will use every tool at his disposal to reward partners and punish opponents. Willing collaborators can expect state visits to the White House, favourable trade deals and exemption from human rights considerations; adversaries will face high import tariffs, diplomatic isolation and, in case of extreme provocation, military action."

Partnership with Russia
During the election campaign, Trump said "When you think about it, wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" ... "Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?" (Reuters).
One could argue that this is what Kerry and Obama somewhat half-heartedly tried, but where the attempt ended up creating a much greater distance from Putin. On the whole, it is undeniable that relations with Russia have deteriorated in recent years, both in terms of relations with the United States and relations with the European Union. Putin, on the other hand, has been able to exploit the situation, especially during Obama's last "lame duck" period, when Putin pushed through his Syria policy. The Crimean annexation and the Donbass conflict are apparently frozen on the surface, but under the ice hot local conflicts continue.
The poor relationship with Russia is reflected in the Gallup poll in the United States, where Russia and North Korea take turns being the main enemy.

The result is remarkable if we compare with previous measurements, but the change in relations with Russia is of course related to the Crimean invasion and the Donbass unrest.

Now we have a situation where people seem to fear what Russia might do to the Baltic countries. With a quiet mutual escalation as a result, in which Russia complains that NATO is moving closer, but deploys Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, while the United States and Europe send smaller military forces to Poland and the Baltic countries.
Perhaps the West's reaction to Russia has been downright foolish and at the same time so weak that Russia has been able to take advantage of the situation to cunningly occupy Crimea. Now they are faced with the risk of increased confrontations.
The alternative must be to seek a good relationship with Russia from a power base, in a something-for-something policy. And isn't that what Trump is proposing? Firstly, by seeing Russia not as a main enemy to be isolated, but as a possible partner. Like negotiations between two large competing companies competing for markets and market shares.
Here's what Trump answered, when asked if he supports European sanctions against Russia: "Well, I think you know — people have to get together and people have to do what they have to do in terms of being fair. ENDORSEMENT? They have sanctions on Russia — let's see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that's part of it. But you do have sanctions and Russia's hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are going to benefit."
Trump claims in three consecutive tweets from early January that only stupid people or fools would argue that a good relationship with Russia would be stupid:
"Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We ... have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now and... both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!" January 7, 2017
Unlike other Western decision-makers, Trump sees opportunities for a partnership with Russia, rather than mutual escalation. Trump is not bound by other politicians' quick assertion that Russia after the Crimean annexation and Syria intervention is the main enemy. Putin has similarly expressed a desire to normalize relations with the United States "and pursue constructive cooperation on the widest possible range of issues."
"If anything is likely to change during the early days of a Trump administration, it is the US's relations with Russia. Trump spoke on several occasions of his admiration for Vladimir Putin, offering to meet him in an effort to improve bilateral relations."
Putin has also stayed on the mat while he waits for Trump. "But it would be a mistake for Putin to assume that any honeymoon in Russian-American relations will prove lasting. As Trump has made very clear, his primary interest is to promote US interests above all else, and this will not allow for any arrangement that could be interpreted as surrendering America's dominant position on the global chessboard. We cannot foresee at what point assertive Russian action in eastern Europe might test that stance, but Trump will not allow the US to be branded as indecisive or weak-willed in any such confrontation."
Now it becomes so speculative. What can a deal with Russia consist of? What could Russia, for example, give in return for the lifting of sanctions and the acceptance of the annexation of Crimea and some referendum in Donbass (a la the referendum in Schleswig after the First World War) in which the people vote on affiliation and status? A cooperation to fight Isis or Daesh and otherwise terror is certainly not enough. More is needed in a "grand bargain" with Russia, nuclear disarmament, a stop to further Russian expansion, cooperation on Middle East problems, advantageous trade agreements, a common front against Chinese expansion. In the long term, it is probably essential that Russia, Europe and the United States must have a minimum of cooperation in order not to be too weak in the face of an increasingly self-confident China, to ensure that disputes in the Middle East do not spiral out of control, resulting in new refugee flows and, finally, to contribute to stability in Africa.

NATO and US interests
When asked if Trump can understand why Eastern Europe fears Putin and Russia, he answers somewhat incoherently by criticizing NATO.
"Sure. Oh sure, I know that. I mean, I understand what's going on, I said a long time ago — that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was, you know, designed many, many years ago. Number two — the countries aren't paying what they're supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete. It's obsolete because it wasn't taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days."
It is a criticism that leads German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to describe "astonishment" and "agitation." After a meeting with the NATO Secretary General  he expresses that Trump's announcement was received with concern. Steinmeier also believed that Trump's statements contradicted what Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis had said during his "confirmation hearing."
What, then, is behind Trump's criticism of NATO for being outdated? Here we must remember what he had previously said. NATO is "obsolete because it wasn't taking care of terror." and then "NATO designed many, many years ago."
Western politicians have before Trump mentioned that NATO should cooperate with Russia, and there have also been questions about NATO's legitimacy after the end of the Cold War.
A fundamental question is therefore whether Trump is not to some extent right, that NATO is obsolete. NATO is not an equal partnership, despite the musketeer oath. NATO is a cheap insurance for Europeans, paid for by the United States. For a very long time, Europe has failed to ensure its own effective defence (with a few exceptions such as the UK).  Instead, Europe has been hiding under the protective wings of the US-American eagle. Therefore, it is basically only the United States that decides in NATO.
It may seem absurd that a European Union of 500 million inhabitants should leave it to the United States, with some 320 million, to intervene alone. This was true of the Balkan conflict, it is largely true of current terrorism and it is still true when you feel threatened by Russia. Some might argue that NATO partners certainly helped the United States, when NATO's musketeer oath was triggered after the 2001 World Trade Center attack. In reality, it was the mouse helping the elephant.
We have to note that when the relationship between the NATO partners is extremely unequal, it is not inconceivable to imagine that the United States would demand that Europe (or the EU) should build its own effective defence.
In the "Bild" and "The Times" interview, Trump also comes back with another criticism: "the countries aren't paying their fair share so we're supposed to protect countries, but a lot of these countries aren't paying what they're supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. In the best Trump style, he then adds, "With that being said, NATO is very important to me."
And Trump is certainly right. Here is the share of GDP that each country pays.

The inequality is even greater when we look at what you contribute in absolute amounts. NATO's defense spending in 2016 totaled USD 918,298 million, of which the United States accounted for USD 664,058 million. Germany contributed only $40,663 million. The UK, on the other hand, with 60,347 million USD.
Trump may be quite right in his criticism of NATO as outdated and that the partners get far too cheap insurance.
Perhaps it is in the awareness that this discrepancy between the obligations and services of Europe and the United States cannot last, and probably also a fear, what Trump might come up with, that Europeans have begun to talk about a European defence and a European army. However, it is not imminent, for the time being they are content with various proposals for better coordination of, among other things, missions outside Europe:
"EU states in November agreed to create a new military headquarters inside Federica Mogherini's foreign service and to make joint "battlegroups" ready for action. The European Commission also unveiled proposals for a joint military research and procurement fund."
In an article in the EU Observer, a title from Magritte's picture of a pipe is used to characterize the EU's plans: "Ceci n'est pas une EU army." No, it’s just the idea of it.

The break-up of the EU and German dominance
From Trump's answer to the question of how he sees the future of the EU and whether he expects more countries to leave the union, one gets the feeling that it is not exactly a topic he is particularly interested in. "I think it’s tough. I spoke to the head of the European Union, very fine gentleman called me up." The gentleman in question turned out to be Jean-Claude Juncker.
For Trump, it doesn't matter if there is a strong union or a collection of strong nation-states: "Personally, I don't think it matters much for the United States. I never thought it mattered. Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don't really care whether it's separate or together, to me it doesn't matter."
It is clearly a view marked by his experience as a businessman, as he embarks on a slightly rambling review of his own experience of business in Europe. However, he is not entirely consistent, because in other parts of the interview he quite clearly supports the idea of a state that one can identify with. A national state with clear borders, which also fits better with his own "USA first" venture. "People, countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity but, I do believe this, if they hadn't been forced to take in all of the refugees, so many, with all the problems that it, you know, entails, I think that you wouldn't have a Brexit. It probably could have worked out but, this was the final straw, this was the final straw that broke the camel's back."
Now, it's not that the UK was exactly flooded by the refugee wave in 2015, so here he mixes things up. Still, he may still be right. As we have previously tried to demonstrate in the blog post "Merkel, last one standing? – you must be mad!" Chancellor Merkel's insistence on free movement of labour in the EU made it difficult for Cameron to argue that he had achieved anything in his negotiations with the EU. Her refugee policy has not exactly been attractive to many Britons either. This may have meant that the "Leave" movement just gained the extra votes that led to Brexit.
If that is the case, Trump's statement makes sense after all.
Which brings us to his attack on Merkel's refugee policy.  "I felt she was a great, great leader. I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from." He sees Merkel as a great leader who made a catastrophic mistake when she opened the borders back in the fall of 2015.
Today, it is probably a view that many share. Merkel made a mistake. A mistake Trump does not want to make, and it is probably in that light that one should see his comments about better control of Muslim immigration to the United States.  "We don't want people coming in from Syria who we don't know who they are. You know there's no way of vetting these people. I don't want to do what Germany did."
This will probably also be an opinion shared by most decision-makers in Europe today, and Merkel has also begun to realize that it was a problematic decision she made. So even though Trump is somewhat incoherent in his arguments, you can probably say that he is hitting the nail on the head here.
Trump also sees problems related to Germany's influence in Europe.
"Cause you look at the UK and you look at the European Union and its Germany. Basically, a vehicle for Germany. That's why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out."
In the blog post "The spectre of German dominance in the EU" we found arguments for the same view, that Europe had become "a vehicle for Germany". The Financial Times writes: "... power within Europe has shifted sharply towards Berlin. Mrs. Merkel is widely seen as the continent's most important politician. In Beijing or Washington, DC, the question: "Where is Europe going?" has become synonymous with: "What do the Germans want?" ... Bureaucrats in Brussels talk ruefully about Berlin becoming the capital of Europe. "When the German position changes on an issue, the kaleidoscope shifts as other countries line up behind them," says one official. "That's unprecedented in the history of the EU." (FT)
Quoting the New Statesman: "A spectre is once again haunting Europe – the spectre of German power."

Free trade or fair trade
Trump's many announcements about unfavourable or downright stupid trade agreements and his Twitter threats against companies that move jobs to low-wage countries have caused some nervousness across large parts of the world and have even had immediate effects on the decisions of large companies.
Many comments have been that Trump's ideas, because plans can hardly call them, are expressions of an unwise protectionism that harms free trade, leads to trade wars, and will ultimately cause everyone to experience reduced economic development, which will also have negative effects on the workers whose jobs Trump claims to secure.
In the interview, Trump's criticism reads: "The problem is the US is always taken advantage of — we have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficits with China — we have $805 billion in trade deficits with the world — ya almost say, who's making these deals when you're losing that kind of money, right — we actually have almost $800 billion — almost $800 billion in trade deficits with the world."
Trump may be exaggerating a bit and using, as far as it can be estimated. In 2015 when the U.S. deficit on "U.S. trade in goods with World, Seasonally Adjusted" was $745.660 billion. For 2016, it appears to have been reduced to $666.117 billion. Still a huge deficit!
Among those who, according to Trump, exploit the United States the most are China and Germany. The United States had a deficit against China in 2015 of just over USD 367 billion and against Germany of just under USD 75 billion. By 2016, however, these deficits had been reduced.
Trump wants a better balance in trade. He is not alone in this. The United States has previously sought to pressure both China and Germany, for example, to do something to reduce the imbalance. In 2016, the United States decided to put China, Germany and three other countries on a watchlist, meaning that "the US Treasury Department [will] increase its monitoring of trade partners with excessive budget and trade surpluses, which Washington suspects are behaving unfairly to support their economies." ...
Three criteria help define the lack of fairness: "maintaining a significant trade surplus with the United States, maintaining a current account surplus larger than 3.0 percent of the country's GDP, and repeated intervention in the foreign exchange market to keep its currency from appreciating."
The purpose of the list is to draw attention to the problem, to try to persuade the countries concerned to do something to reduce the imbalance. If not, "the countries could face a greater threat of sanctions in the future."
Well, and that's probably exactly what can be expected with Trump's announcements.
With "America first" and "fair trade" ideas and Twitter threats, Trump is also seeking to preserve jobs in the United States. In the interview, Trump once again warns car factories against moving parts of their production to Mexico.
"I would tell them, don't waste their time and money — unless they want to sell to other countries, that's fine — if they want to open in Mexico, I love Mexico, I like the president, I like everybody — but I would tell BMW if they think they're
going to build a plant in Mexico and sell cars into the US without a 35 per cent tax,
it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen."
With BMW, Trump may not choose the best example. Because the German CAR institute can actually demonstrate that BMW only sells 1% more cars in the US than they produce there. On the other hand, it looks quite different for VW, which otherwise has plenty of problems, because VW sells 626% more cars in the US than it produces there.

Trump's notions of a better trade balance and securing U.S. jobs have been accompanied by significant verbal threats and tweets that have already had an effect on a number of companies' decisions not to move production from the U.S. to Mexico.
In the "World Economic Forum," which is being held in Davos these days, the message has also been heard and there are indications that it is being taken seriously. Reuters reported here on January 19: "Davos CEOs 'go local' on supply chain in Trump era" and continues: "Business leaders in Davos, traditionally the high priests of globalization, are talking up the benefits of local production this week to shield themselves from criticism from incoming U.S. President Donald Trump."
However, many media outlets have also made a point of reporting Xi Jinping's speech in Davos, because the Chinese leader's speech actually contained a defence of globalization and a more or less direct warning about the danger of protectionism under a future President Trump.
Perhaps it should have been noted instead that China, which has pursued a protectionist policy of first, is now agitating for free trade, while the United States, which has been in favour of free trade, is now seen as heading towards protectionism.
Perhaps Trump's threats have affected China, because Xi Jinping also promised that China would become more open to outside investment: "We will expand market access for foreign investors, build high-standard pilot free trade zones, strengthen protection of property rights, and level the playing field to make China's market more transparent and better regulated"
Xi Jinping also said that the exchange rate of the Chinese Renminbi (RMB) would not destabilize the world economy: "China has no intention to boost its trade competitiveness by devaluing the RMB, still less will it launch a currency war."
Perhaps these parts of Xi Jinping's speech should be seen as an admission that China has so far acted quite differently.

He has got a point or two, hasn't he?
Don't we have to conclude that Trump, despite his difficulty in expressing his ideas in a coherent and diplomatic manner in interviews and tweets, "has got a point or two"? He touches on a number of important problems that decision-makers in the United States and Europe have neither been particularly willing to acknowledge nor have been able to solve.
Now, despite the almost allergic reactions of many politicians, various think tank experts and the increasingly breathless (or is it spiritless) media's almost allergic reactions to his ideas and not least his way of expressing them, Trump has burst various boils.
Whether Trump and his new team will be able to find solutions to the problems remains to be seen. What can be left in doubt, however, is that his announcements have had effects even before he takes office as president.
 
BTW: Trump and Trumping have several meanings. Here we have thought about the meaning of trump we find in "Oxford Learners Dictionaries":
"Trump something (with something) (in some card games) to play a trump card that beats somebody else's card,"
"Trump something/somebody to beat something that somebody says or does by saying or doing something even better"
Others might think that an old French meaning of "trumper" would be more appropriate: "Properly to play the horn, alluding to quacks and mountebanks, who attracted the public by blowing a horn, and then cheated them into buying; To cheat."

Wrote the NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung), on November 8, 2024, after Trump again surprised politicians, media and commentators everywhere with his convincing election victory over Kamala Harris.
After the election the NZZ commentator like many others suddenly realise there might actually be a reason for his astounding victory: “The Republican is the most sensitive seismograph of our era. The man who exaggerates and exaggerates everything to the point of caricature, whose speeches are full of gaffes, baseless allegations and crazy exaggerations, has a fine sense of perception. He recognized the enormous upheaval in Western industrial societies earlier than others.” (NZZ, November 8, 2024)
 Wonder why they did not see that coming, given that Trump did exactly the same thing in 2016. To show that this was indeed the case, take a look at an English verbatim translation of essay published in Danish on November 30, 2016. That’s right 2016, eight years ago. But then apparently not everyone got the message, neither in the US nor in certain European countries. So today we have several stronger replays.
 
Here the 2016 essay:
 
Seismic upheavals in the West
November 30, 2016 openthoughts.eu
 
The ominous signs of seismic activity
"Everybody was wrong. Again. When Election Day dawned, almost all the pollsters, analytics nerds and political insiders in the country had Hillary Clinton waltzing into the White House." (Politico)
Media and commentators cannot hide their astonishment and almost indignation at the U.S. election of Trump as president: "How could a man who many voters considered mentally, morally, and too temperamental to lead the country be elected president of the United States of America, with enormous power capable of wreaking national and international havoc" (Forbes).
Surprise and disappointment also characterized the reactions in the media after the Brexit vote. BBC: "Brexit: Europe stunned by UK Leave vote ... news that one of the bloc's largest members is leaving will come as a shock, with real implications for the country's own political debate."
In Germany, the established parties have been challenged by the AfD (Alterative für Deutschland), which has made significant gains in the most recent parliamentary elections in 2016. In Saxony-Anhalt they reached as much as 24.3 percent of the vote, in Rhineland-Palatinate 12.6 percent, Baden-Württemberg 15.1 percent, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 20.8 percent, and finally Berlin 14.2 percent.
The surprises can be seen as a long series of seismic tremors in the political landscape in recent years. Tremors that have caused the ground to move under a relatively immobile political landscape of old parties and fixed agendas with, for example, more EU, with more free trade, with growth and globalization, with pluralism.
In a previous blog post "A crumbling European Union? From June 21st we wrote about "Too many cracks to count..." We saw a tendency for a bottom turn. Where politicians, who do not want to give air (oxygen) to the population's concerns, instead have to put up with the fact that what they consider to be abominably smelling opinions and statements keep bubbling up from the depths of the people.
Protest parties such as the AfD in Germany, on the other hand, have not been slow to give oxygen to the opinions that bubble up, while established parties are trying to push them back to earth with verbal contempt and holding their noses. That is hardly enough to keep them down, because in recent years we have seen a general increase in support for alternative parties in Europe.
In countries like Greece and Spain, with new left-wing parties that turn against the established political system and against the dictates of the EU. In Greece, represented by Syriza. In Spain, represented by the party at Podemos, which in the June 2016 elections obtained 21.1 percent of the votes cast, which was admittedly disappointing for themselves, but nevertheless represents more than one in five voters. In Greece, the party Syriza, which won 35.5 percent of the vote in the September 2015 elections.
Otherwise, it is mainly right-wing parties that have created a break in the party landscape in many places in Europe.

Only parties that have recently gained more than 10 percent support in elections or in opinion polls are included. This means that the "Vlaams Belang" from Belgium, which has plunged sharply in opinion polls and Greece's "Golden Dawn" is not included.
Should we continue to hold our noses over the politics of these parties? Based on the idea that they represent smelly bubbles from people without the right values and without the right attitudes. People who cannot comprehend the grandeur of the magnificent and humanistic project that the self-affirming and self-proclaimed elite with the right opinions stand for.
In "A crumbling European Union?" from June 21, we wrote about "too many cracks to count..." There are simply too many, from a lack of economic growth accompanied by austerity policies, high unemployment in southern Europe, increasing problems in a large economy like France, Grexit, Brexit and Nexit dangers, and an increasingly sinister German dominance. More intangible problems are the democratic deficit, the Eurobureaucracy and the opacity of decision-making processes. There is an inability to deal with the crises that arise from the outside. The conflict with Russia, a very poor ability to influence conflicts in the Middle East, and increased Muslim-inspired terrorism. At the moment, there is the refugee crisis, which is being tried to reduce by pandering to authoritarian regimes.
 
Who is causing the tremors?
Who is creating the surprises? Who is demonstrating? Is it just smelly "pack" that some German politicians have talked about? The people who have not understood everything? People without education and education? People who just follow empty slogans and easy answers to problems?
With the surprising election of Trump, many attempts have been made to explain who might elected him, so to speak despite the prevailing opinions of the mainstream media. Otherwise, they would hardly have been so surprised.
We can try to create a picture of who actually elected Trump in the US and who, chooses the AfD in Germany and UKIP in the UK
An exit poll from CNN shows something about those who voted for Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, respectively.
 

Where Trump has had a significant predominance is among whites without higher education, men and here mainly the slightly older generation. The predominance of the vote for Clinton is mainly found among non-whites, women and the younger generation. This has led some to talk about the outcome of the election as a "whitelash," i.e., an election in which the white, less educated part of the population fights back against everything a President Obama has stood for. But as can be seen, that is not the explanation, because other groups have certainly voted for Trump as well.
The picture is therefore more nuanced than that.
If we look at the correlation between education and who people voted for, it is clear that Trump has caught more whites with a higher education by a margin of 4 points compared to Clinton. However, the margin is much larger when it comes to whites with less education or no education.

Pew Research has also looked at how whites, blacks and Hispanics have voted in current and previous presidential elections. Here you can see that the positive democratic margin for "blacks" and "Hispanics" has become smaller than in the previous presidential election, when Obama was re-elected to a second term. Trump has thus also conquered both "black" and "Hispanic" votes, even though most have voted for Clinton.

 A similar picture emerges for the correlation between age group and preference. Trump has also won over younger voters, although Clinton retained a large margin, her margin is clearly diminished compared to the election of Obama. Curiously, Trump's superiority among older voters actually seems to have diminished a bit compared to the last election of Obama.

Where does the support for the AfD come from? Who are the dissatisfied? A study states "that although blue-collar workers have an above-average affinity to the party, AfD is not the party of the ordinary people. The AfD draws voters from all the other parties but the shares vary. The ideological position of its voters is more to the right than the population as a whole, but the majority does not show an extreme right-wing belief system."

That the AfD does not only attract from the group of workers is underlined by an electoral analysis from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which shows that the AfD attracts protest voters from across the spectrum:
All in all, however, the picture is somewhat more nuanced than the simple explanation that the election of Trump is the uneducated white man's revenge on all the others.
 
Who will elect the AfD in Germany?
In connection with the refugee crisis, the protest party AfD (Alternative for Germany) gained momentum, while the ruling coalition's parties, the CDU/CSU, had declining support in opinion polls. An opinion poll from November 11, 2016 shows this picture of the current support for the parties, where the AfD competes with the Greens for third place:

Where does the support for the AfD come from? Who are the dissatisfied? A study states "that although blue-collar workers have an above-average affinity to the party, AfD is not the party of the ordinary people. The AfD draws voters from all the other parties but the shares vary. The ideological position of its voters is more to the right than the population as a whole, but the majority does not show an extreme right-wing belief system."
That the AfD does not only attract from the group of workers is underlined by an electoral analysis from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which shows that the AfD attracts protest voters from across the spectrum:

Where do we find Ukip supporters?
According to an opinion poll reproduced in the Huffington Post in 2015, the following characterization applies:
“Ukip supporters are more likely to be male, and to be older. Those aged 45 or older - and particularly those aged 65 and above - are more likely than average to support Ukip. Geographically, Ukip support is higher in Eastern England, Yorkshire & Humberside, and the Midlands. Support is noticeably weaker in Scotland, as well as in London.”

The signatures DE to AB stand for social class, where A and B make up the upper end and D and E unskilled workers, the unemployed and pensioners.
We can see that support is particularly found among older men from one of the lower social classes, and then we can see a geographical concentration of Ukip voters.
 
An expanding doughnut with a growing hole in the middle
Now we have a number of more or less reliable indications of who is helping to create tremors in the established political landscape. We might say that the indicators suggest that it may be especially true of those who may feel that they are about to fall off an increasingly fast-spinning hamster wheel of economic, social and value changes.
In his speech on election night, Trump said: “I pledge to every citizen of our country that I will be president for all Americans,... The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.” Perhaps he has an important explanation for what swept him to power.
Our own assumption is that the fundamental social problems in large parts of the Western world can be illustrated by the fact that a previously cohesive mass is becoming an expanding doughnut, where a more diverse and self-confident periphery runs with all the attention, while one has an eye for the expanding hollowing out in the middle. The expansion is so strong that the periphery itself is splitting into separate parts.
The picture is intended to illustrate the idea that society is disintegrating into all kinds of special interest groups. It is the expanding periphery of the doughnut. In the ever-widening empty hole in the middle, we find the forgotten parts of society.
On the periphery we find the noisy, loud, wildly gesticulating, groups of focused opinions, all seeking to attract maximum attention, with the aim of achieving their own good regardless of the consequences for society.
In the middle we find large numbers of isolated people, those without organization, without the ability to gather in powerful movements, without the ability to articulate their wishes and demands in well-articulated explanations and justifications.
But today we have begun to hear them, because now they are noisy. They make their mark in protest parties and they mark themselves with silent votes on a ballot paper. We hear their inarticulate shouts, incantations, protests and actions captured by protest parties all over the Western world.
Admittedly, they are often dismissed as “Pack”,”not house-trained,” “right-wing radical,” “xenophobic,” opponents of development in general, of globalisation, of multiculturalism. Their demands are incomprehensible and unacceptable.
 
What are they shouting about?
The cries that are heard in the German protests can be seen in the AfD's interpretation in their party program:
 
Referendums modelled on the Swiss model
A distancing from the EU, with more focus on the national and the nation state
A significantly greater focus on internal security
A focus on the family and children
Strengthening culture, language and identity
Strengthened educational efforts
As far as research is concerned, they want to abolish "gender research"
And here comes one of the main pillars:
No irregular immigration, " Die überkommene Politik der großzügigen Asylgewährung im Wissen um massenhaften Missbrauch führt ... zu einer rasanten, unaufhaltsamen Besiedelung Europas, insbesondere Deutschlands, durch Menschen aus anderen Kulturen und Weltteile"
 
If we look at UKIP's interpretation of the murmuring murmurs and protests of the forgotten middle, it relates to the following themes:

Identity politics in the US
To understand the protest, we need to see how the hollowed-out center differs from the colorful and articulate periphery that runs with attention.
We can do this by looking at what has been called identity politics in the United States.
"The laden phrase "identity politics" has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination." (Stanford)
For Mark Lilla, the progressive US liberals have been preoccupied with and praised diversity, or multiculturalism. For the past several years, progressives in the U.S. have been frantically preoccupied with identity issues related to racial inequality,
gender, and sexual identity. They have been morally, ideologically and politically preoccupied with issues of so-called marginalized groups and interests belonging to the expanding periphery and more or less ignored the gap left by the expanding periphery in the middle.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is an example of this focus: “She tended on the campaign trail to lose the large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don't, those left out will.”
This preoccupation with identity and self-assertion of African-American identity, of the Spanish minority, of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals, of women's identity and equality, has meant that in a sense they have lost sight of coherence, the common, even society itself. The focus has more or less become on what separates the different identities, not on what is common. In this way, they contribute to the expanding periphery that moves out from the center. A periphery that is split into separate parts, in the struggle for identity, in diversity, in separation, not community. It is the “I” that is important, not the “We.”
This focus on what separates us in the many separate identities can have bizarre results, at least if you look at them from within the almost by definition not progressive, conservative middle, which represents what remains.
One of the bizarre outcomes is known as "The Bathroom Bill." At a school in North Carolina, a female student, who claimed to be a boy, had asked for permission to use the men's restroom. However, the school decided to advocate a policy where men's and women's toilets might only be used by students of the gender for which they are intended. In addition, the school chose to have single-room toilets that could be used by everyone and thus also by the student in question.
The student did not want to accept the decision and referred to the fact that the US Department of Education had recommended that students should be treated in accordance with their gender identity, i.e. the one they themselves believed to have.
Later, the state of North Carolina passed the now herostratically famous "Bathroom Bill," which entitled: "Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex."
The law resulted in a storm of criticism directed at the law and its defender, Governor Pat McCrory. The criticism came from many sides. More than 90 prominent business leaders from companies including Apple, Facebook, Airbnb, Yahoo, Twitter, Salesforce, Marriott, Pfizer and Levi Strauss signed a letter calling on Gov. Pat McCrory (R) to repeal the law entirely.
Today, it is debated whether this particular law caused MacCrory to lose the governorship in the recent election.
For the protesters, the many protests against the law and the threats of boycotts in North Carolina, is seen a progressive wave that contributes to the safety of, suppressed and overlooked minorities, like the girl who felt like a boy. For others, it represents an example of the bizarre detours that identity politics leads to. And we're not done at all. In New York City, there are so far 39 recognized gender identities.
The problem is of course not that there should not be room for them, the problem is the exaggerated focus on such aspects of identity, where one gradually seems to completely lose an understanding of society as a "Gemeinschaft" where the “We” creates coherence and the "I" creates division.
 
Safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions–  the language of separation
Identity politics is accompanied by other phenomena that hardly contribute to holding a society together. These are phenomena such as "safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions."
 "Safe Spaces." was originally associated with places where minorities, such as gays and lesbians, could avoid condemnation, without having to defend their identity to others.
Today, there are "safe spaces" at many universities in the United States, where they have become the term for places, where students are not confronted with statements and opinions that may worry or disturb them.
“Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being "bombarded" by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints.” Kansas State University's “safe spaces” program “provides safe zones throughout campus where individuals can find support and assistance while escaping homophobia, hateful acts and sexual violence. This is done by placing the SafeZone symbol on office doors, desks, backpacks, etc”
 "Trigger warnings" were probably originally such warnings as you can experience in news broadcasts, where warnings are given about images that can be disturbing, but "trigger warnings" are used today about the warnings teachers are expected to use, if something in their teaching might give rise to strong emotions or trigger trauma in pupils and students."The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might "trigger" a recurrence of past trauma"
"Microaggressions" are small phrases or actions that, without thinking about it, can be perceived as derogatory, aggressive or disruptive by others. The New York Times quotes an example of microaggression: "Saying "you guys", since the phrase could be interpreted as excluding women." Yes, that's how far out on the exaggeration you are actually getting.
For the part of the population in the overlooked hole in our doughnut, it will be seen an expression that is not associated with aggression or prejudice.
Finally, we can mention "cultural appropriation," where something that may constitute a characteristic of one culture is copied or used by another culture. It is seen as a kind of cultural exploitation. Bizarre examples have been mentioned, such as the Western world's adoption of yoga or of African hairstyles.
Such attempts to take into account a multitude of different minorities and identities risk undermining what they are trying to achieve, a kind of mutual consideration. Instead, the result will be a splitting of the expanding doughnut into more and more peripheral groups of opinions that will not hear other opinions.
Admittedly, the University of Chicago recently tried to do away with such trends in a message to new students: "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."
The result was to be expected, protests not only from students, but also from teachers.
Self-proclaimed progressives today seem almost morbidly preoccupied with what we have called the periphery, with diversity, with multiculturalism, with the different, the oppressed, and with voting and promoting action in every way to promote diversity, while ignoring what is supposed to make diversity function as a society.
Curiously, Senator Bernie Sanders, who lost the race to Hillary Clinton, seems to be on the same track when he recently expressed in a speech that Democrats need to get over "identity politics" to connect with a larger part of the electorate, saying, "It's not good enough for somebody to say, 'I'm a woman, vote for me.' That is not good enough."
Sanders sees Clinton's focus on identity politics, on what we have called the peripheral groups of the doughnut, as a problem and as the reason why the Democrats lost the presidential election to Trump.
Even language and forms of expression are perhaps becoming something that divides instead of being something that essentially serves to unite. "I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from" (Bernie Sanders).
Here one can add that it was perhaps exactly what Donald Trump was able to do, speak a language where everyone could understand what he said, and then it became less important in relation to the opponent whether what he said was always consistent or true.
Isn't it becoming a general problem that a "snapchattering class of people" uses language that doesn't make sense to many others and expresses opinions that can eventually only be accepted by themselves.
 
The loss of security in the middle of the doughnut
"The working class of this country is being decimated — that's why Donald Trump won ... And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people, who understand that real median family income has gone down." Said Bernie Sanders recently.