Tag: russia

Tariff

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Tariffs as Weapons: Trump’s Use of Economic Pressure in Global Politics In recent years, global politics has witnessed a shift in how economic tools are used as instruments of power. One of the most prominent examples is U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to international relations, where tariffs and trade threats became tools of political coercion rather than instruments of balanced economic policy. His stance toward the European Union, Denmark over Greenland, and India for its ties with Russia illustrates a broader pattern of using economic leverage to influence the sovereign decisions of other nations. Trump’s trade policy consistently blurred the line between economics and diplomacy. Traditionally, tariffs are imposed to protect domestic industries or address trade imbalances. Under Trump, however, they evolved into punitive measures aimed at pressuring allies and rivals alike. This approach weakened confidence in global trade norms and disrupted long-standing alliances. The European Union became a major target of this strategy. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports from the EU, citing national security concerns. These tariffs affected billions of dollars’ worth of European exports. When European leaders supported Denmark’s sovereignty during the Greenland controversy, the backdrop of ongoing tariff pressure reinforced the perception that economic punishment could follow political disagreement. Rather than diplomatic engagement, economic intimidation became the preferred response, undermining principles of mutual respect and international law. India also experienced this coercive approach. In 2019, the United States withdrew India’s benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, affecting exports worth around 5.6 billion dollars. Trump repeatedly warned of higher tariffs on Indian goods while criticizing India’s defense and energy ties with Russia. Using tariff as a diplomatic tool to influence India’s independent foreign policy decisions, disregarding its historical security partnerships and strategic autonomy. This style of diplomacy sets a dangerous precedent. When tariffs are used as weapons, global trade becomes unstable, smaller economies face disproportionate pressure, and multilateral institutions are weakened. Allies begin to view economic interdependence as a liability rather than a partnership, accelerating fragmentation in the global order. Moreover, such coercive tactics contradict the principles of a rules-based international system. Instead of negotiation and consensus, economic bullying replaces diplomacy, increasing the likelihood of retaliation, trade wars, and long-term economic damage for all parties involved, including the United States. In conclusion, Trump’s use of tariffs as political weapons against the European Union, India, and other nations reflects a confrontational and short-term approach to global leadership. While it may project domestic strength, it erodes trust, strains alliances, and destabilizes international economic relations. Sustainable global leadership requires cooperation, respect for sovereignty, and diplomacy rather than threats disguised as trade policy.Estimated U.S. tariff figures on key countries/regions under the Trump administration’s tariff policy: 1. Canada• Baseline and negotiated tariffs on Canadian goods have varied under Trump-era policies. • Reports indicate tariffs on Canadian imports (non-USMCA goods) at around 35% in some versions of the tariff rollout. 2. Latin American Countries • Latin American nations generally faced the baseline 10% tariff under the broad April 2025 tariff policy. • Specific higher tariffs have not been widely documented for all Latin American countries collectively as of available data, but Brazil has been cited separately (see below). 3. India • Trump announced increased tariffs on Indian imports, with reported bilateral tariffs around 26% to 75%. 25% for not reducing tariff on American goods25% for trade with Russia25% for trade with Iran 4. European Union (and Allies) • Under Trump’s broader tariff strategy, the European Union faced tariffs of around 20% on many traded goods as of mid-2025. • In early 2026 tariff threats tied to political disputes (e.g., Greenland) included 10% tariffs increasing to 25% unless political conditions were met. 5. Denmark (and Related European Allies)• Specifically tied to the Greenland dispute, Denmark and several European allies were targeted with a 10% tariff beginning February 2026, slated to rise to 25% by June 2026 if political conditions were unmet. 6. Iran• While Iran itself is subject to U.S. sanctions and trade restrictions (and not typically part of normal tariff schedules), recent Trump administration announcements included a 25% tariff on imports from any country trading with Iran as a punitive measure.

Summary Table (Approximate Tariff Levels) Country / Region Approx. U.S. Tariff Rate.

Canada ~35% on non-USMCA goods Latin American Countries (general) ~10% baseline

India ~26–75% European Union ~20% (baseline policy)

Denmark (Greenland dispute tariff) 10% rising,to 25%.

A fear Wave in Europe

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

A Growing Fear Wave in Europe: Security Anxiety in the Shadow of Russia

Across Europe, particularly in Germany, a growing sense of insecurity is becoming increasingly visible. This fear is not the result of sudden panic but has developed gradually through a series of geopolitical signals that suggest Europe may be entering a more unstable and uncertain security environment. At the center of this anxiety lies the possibility of an expanded confrontation between Russia and NATO.

One of the most concerning developments is the rise of hybrid warfare. Modern conflict no longer relies solely on tanks and troops crossing borders. Instead, it increasingly unfolds through cyberattacks on government systems and critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns that undermine public trust and democratic processes, interference with satellite communication and navigation systems, and acts of sabotage targeting undersea cables and energy infrastructure. These actions often remain below the threshold of declared war, making it difficult to respond decisively while still generating constant psychological pressure. For many Europeans, this creates the unsettling feeling that conflict has already begun, even if it is not openly visible.

The Baltic Sea region has emerged as a particular point of concern. It holds major strategic importance due to the presence of NATO member states, vital energy pipelines, internet cables, and key trade routes. Its proximity to Russia, including the heavily militarized Kaliningrad region, adds to the tension. Any disruption in this area, whether intentional or accidental, carries the risk of escalation, intensifying anxiety among governments and citizens alike.

Germany’s reaction to these developments is especially significant. For decades after the Second World War, Germany placed its trust in diplomacy, economic interdependence, and external security guarantees. Today, there is a noticeable psychological shift. Public discussions increasingly focus on military readiness, defense spending, civil protection, and emergency preparedness. This change is not driven by militaristic ambition but by a growing realization that the long period of assumed peace and stability in Europe may no longer be assured.

Another major source of unease is the changing role of the United States in European security. While the United States remains a NATO ally, shifting political priorities, domestic challenges, and a strategic focus on other global regions have led Europeans to question the reliability and consistency of American security commitments. This uncertainty has strengthened calls for greater European strategic autonomy and closer defense cooperation within Europe itself.

Security fears are further amplified by economic and energy vulnerabilities. Dependence on external energy supplies, rising living costs, inflation, and broader economic uncertainty all contribute to a heightened sense of instability. When economic stress coincides with geopolitical tension, public anxiety deepens, even in the absence of immediate military conflict.

Fear itself has become a powerful psychological and strategic factor. Persistent uncertainty can weaken social cohesion, erode trust in institutions, and make societies more vulnerable to polarization and manipulation. A population that feels constantly threatened is easier to destabilize, even without direct confrontation.

Europe now faces a critical moment of choice. The challenge is not only military or strategic but also psychological and moral. The continent must find ways to strengthen its defenses while preserving democratic values, to remain vigilant without succumbing to paranoia, and to promote unity without fueling fear.

Whether or not a direct military conflict occurs, Europe is already experiencing a new phase of insecurity. The task ahead is to transform fear into preparedness, anxiety into cooperation, and uncertainty into thoughtful, measured strategy, without losing the values and principles that define European society.

Dr. Nelson Kattikat

U.S:The fading sun

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Is the United States Losing Its Global Supremacy?

The short answer is that the era of overwhelming, unilateral U.S. dominance is evolving. While the United States remains a preeminent global power, its relative position is being challenged, signaling a shift toward a more multipolar world order.

Evidence of a Shifting Landscape

Multiple indicators point to a relative decline in U.S. influence across key domains:

· Technology and Research: The U.S. edge in foundational innovation is facing pressure. A 2023 report by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) concluded that America’s lead in information technology R&D is narrowing significantly. The report highlighted that U.S. federal funding for R&D as a percentage of GDP has stagnated, while China’s has surged, with the Asian nation now accounting for a larger share of global R&D expenditure than the United States.
· Global Public Perception: International confidence in U.S. leadership has waned. The Pew Research Center’s 2023 Global Attitudes Survey, which surveyed 24 countries, provides stark evidence. The study found that a median of only 31% of respondents expressed confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs. Furthermore, the U.S. image abroad has been impacted by perceptions of its leaders; in the same survey, a median of 80% described the U.S. president as “arrogant” and 65% as “dangerous.”
· Relative Economic and Military Scale: While the U.S. maintains the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, the gap is closing. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), China’s economy, when measured by purchasing power parity, has already surpassed that of the United States. Militarily, the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2023 report on China notes its rapid modernization, making it a “pacing challenge” and the only competitor with the intent and capacity to reshape the international order.

Redefining “Supremacy” in a New Era

Global supremacy today is less about absolute dominance and more about the ability to shape international rules, lead alliances, and exert cultural and economic influence. By this measure, the U.S. retains formidable strengths:

· It is home to the world’s leading innovation hubs (e.g., Silicon Valley).
· It anchors powerful military alliances like NATO.
· Its universities and cultural exports continue to wield significant soft power.

However, the margin of this dominance is shrinking. The rise of other powers, coupled with transnational challenges like climate change and cybersecurity that demand multilateral solutions, has eroded the conditions for unilateral leadership. This has led some allies to question the reliability of the U.S., thereby undermining a key pillar of its strategic influence.

Conclusion: A Transition to a Contested Order

The evidence indicates a clear transition. The post-Cold War period of near-unquestioned U.S. primacy is giving way to a more fragmented and competitive landscape. The United States remains a central and indispensable power, but its supremacy is now contested. Its future influence will depend not on acting alone, but on its ability to reinforce partnerships, innovate consistently, and rebuild confidence to navigate an increasingly multipolar world.

The Tariff war

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment


The U.S. has asked G7 countries to impose tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia, asserting that only “unified efforts” that cut off funding to Moscow’s war machine at source can apply sufficient pressure to end “the senseless killing.”
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer were on a call with G7 Finance Ministers on Friday (September 12, 2025) when they reiterated President Donald Trump’s call to the bloc’s partners about imposing tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia.
François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s Minister of Finance and National Revenue, chaired a meeting of G7 Finance Ministers to discuss further measures to increase pressure on Russia to end its war against Ukraine.
G7 is an intergovernmental bloc of rich, industrialised countries comprising the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K. Canada is the head of the rolling G7 presidency this year.
“During today’s call with G7 Finance Ministers, Secretary Bessent reiterated President Trump’s call to our G7 partners that, if they are truly committed to ending the war in Ukraine, they should join the United States in imposing tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia,” a U.S. Treasury Department statement said after the call.
The statement did not name any country. But the U.S. has often blamed India and China for purchasing Russian oil even when there are no tariffs on Beijing for it.
“Only with a unified effort that cuts off the revenues funding (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s war machine at the source will we be able to apply sufficient economic pressure to end the senseless killing,” said Secretary Bessent and Ambassador Greer.
“Thanks to President Trump’s bold leadership, the United States has already taken dramatic action against the purchasers of Russian oil. We are encouraged by the assurances of our fellow G7 nations that they are committed to ending this war, and we are hopeful that they will join us in taking decisive action at this critical time,” the statement added.
The U.S. has doubled tariffs on Indian goods to a whopping 50%, including a 25% additional duty for India’s purchase of Russian crude oil, an action that New Delhi has described as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.”
India has been maintaining that its energy procurement, including buying oil from Russia, is driven by national interest and market dynamics.
India and the U.S. have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March. So far, five rounds of negotiations have been completed.
For the sixth round, the U.S. team, which was to visit India last month, deferred its visit due to the imposition of a 50% tariff on Indian goods by Washington.
Trade relations between the two countries have been strained due to the high tariffs. The two countries had earlier announced plans to conclude the first phase of the India-U.S. bilateral trade agreement by the fall of 2025.
A statement from Champagne said, “Russia’s increasingly aggressive stance, including recent bombings in Ukraine and Wednesday’s violation of Polish airspace by Russian drones, and its unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire have prompted this G7 meeting.”
Canada, as part of its G7 Presidency, remains committed to working closely with G7 allies to increase pressure on Russia and support Ukraine’s long-term security and recovery, he said in the statement.
“G7 Ministers agreed to accelerate discussions to further use immobilised Russian sovereign assets to fund Ukraine’s defence, and to explore other mechanisms that would allow further increasing financial support to Ukraine,” it added.
Secretary Bessent and Ambassador Greer also welcomed commitments to increase sanctions pressure and explore using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to further benefit Ukraine’s defence, it said.
On Friday, President Trump, when asked in an interview with ‘Fox and Friends’ what clamping down on his Russian counterpart entails, said: “Look, India was their biggest customer. I put a 50% tariff on India because they’re buying oil from Russia. That’s not an easy thing to do. That’s a big deal and it causes a rift with India.”

from Hindu

Modern Monarchs

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Modern Monarchs

By Dr. Nelson Kattikat

In the past, the world was ruled by kings and monarchs. We’ve all heard of Alexander the Great, the queens of royal families, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Tsars of Russia, and the monarchs of France. These rulers held immense power. For centuries, they suppressed democracy and ruled with an iron fist, often killing those who dared to oppose them.

At that time, hardly anyone believed it was possible to escape their autocratic control. But over time, human consciousness evolved. The ideas of freedom and equality began to spread. Movements like the French Revolution sparked a shift toward democracy. We learned that, through public awareness and collective will, even the most deeply rooted systems of oppression could be challenged and changed.

I bring up these kings to draw a parallel with today’s powerful weapon lobbies and arms manufacturers. These large corporations, run by wealthy businessmen, are the modern-day kings. In countries like the United States—considered a beacon of development—there are still tragic mass shootings, even in schools.

We know that American weapon manufacturers export arms across the globe. In places like Afghanistan, tribal communities with no technological capacity to build weapons are somehow using AK-47s against foreign forces. In Africa, people struggling without basic needs like food, water, or education are fighting each other with modern firearms—tools they could never produce themselves. Where are these weapons coming from?

In every modern war, we see new weapons—more advanced, more destructive. War itself has evolved; it’s no longer just conflict—it’s become a tool for exerting power. From the Ukraine–Russia war to the Israel–Iran conflict, we must ask: Who is supplying the weapons?

We all recognize that it’s time to stop this cycle of violence and war. Weapons have become a menace to global society. But who will stop the production of arms? Do we really expect the massive defense companies to stop simply because their products cause death and destruction?

Just like we did with the monarchs of the past, we must raise public awareness. Public education, coordinated activism, and creative policy (e.g., incentivised divestment) are crucial to counter these “modern kings” and transform weapon-centric economies toward peace and human development.
Back then, we stripped kings of their unchecked power, offered them symbolic roles, and gave them ‘pensions’ by modern government system. Similarly, maybe it’s time we offer a kind of ‘pension’ to the arms industry—an incentive for the owners and their future generations to live comfortably without manufacturing weapons. We must transition toward a world of peace, cooperation, and shared progress without weapons of mal motivated companies 🙏.

(🔫 The Hidden Monarchs:

  1. Global Scale & Economic Profile

Metric 2023 Data

Worldwide military expenditure $2.44 trillion
Total revenue of top 100 arms companies $632 billion (4.2% increase YOY)
Top 25 companies’ arms sales $445 billion (+3.6% from 2022)
Global arms industry valuation ~$475 billion
Analysis:
This concentration shows that a small number of corporations dominate revenues and influence—akin to modern monarchs.

  1. Major Players: The New “Kings”

Top arms manufacturers by 2023 arms revenue (SIPRI figures):

  1. Lockheed Martin — $60.8 B (90% from defense)
  2. RTX Corporation — $40.7 B
  3. Northrop Grumman — $35.6 B
  4. Boeing — $31.1 B
  5. General Dynamics — $30.2 B

Other significant names include BAE Systems, Rostec (Russia), Norinco & CASIC (China), L3Harris, Airbus, Leonardo .

Lockheed Martin develops F‑35s, Patriots, missiles, satellites .

General Dynamics supplies tanks, submarines, combat vehicles, and tech services .

  1. Export Power & Geopolitical Reach

The U.S. accounts for ~43% of global arms exports (past 5 years); France is second (~10%) .

U.S. defense companies amassed $317 B, a 2.5% rise on 2022 .

Between 2020–2024, U.S. exports grew ~20%, largely due to Ukraine conflict .)

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16xhHryYd8

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16xhHryYd8

Soft power, Hard power and Smart power of America

whisperer2darkness1 Comment

Soft Power, Hard Power, and the Decline of Smart Power: A Look at U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump

By Nelson Kattikat

In global politics, the strength of a nation is not determined solely by the size of its military or economic might. It is also shaped by how it is perceived, admired, and emulated by others. This distinction lies at the heart of the concepts of hard power, soft power, and their combination — smart power.

Understanding Power in Global Relations

Hard power refers to a country’s ability to influence others through coercive means — primarily military force and economic pressure. It is evident in war, sanctions, and defense alliances. On the other hand, soft power — a term coined by political scientist Joseph Nye — is the ability to shape preferences through appeal and attraction, using culture, political values, education, diplomacy, and humanitarian efforts.

When countries effectively combine both approaches — leveraging military strength when necessary, while also investing in global goodwill and cooperation — they practice what is known as smart power.

Soft Power: America’s Strategic Advantage

For decades, the United States has been a dominant soft power force. Its universities attract the world’s brightest minds. Hollywood films, pop music, and tech giants project American culture globally. Institutions like USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) have provided humanitarian aid and development assistance, enhancing America’s image as a benevolent leader.

USAID, in particular, plays a critical role in soft power diplomacy. By funding education, healthcare, infrastructure, and crisis response in developing countries, the U.S. builds long-term goodwill, influence, and partnerships — without relying on force.

Trump Administration: A Shift Away from Soft Power

Under President Donald Trump, U.S. foreign policy experienced a dramatic shift. His administration emphasized “America First,” prioritizing national interests and reducing foreign commitments. One significant move was the proposal to slash funding for USAID and the State Department — the primary institutions behind America’s soft power strategy.

Though Congress pushed back on some of these cuts, the message was clear: the Trump administration favored hard power and unilateralism over diplomacy and development. He also:

Withdrew from international agreements, like the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization

Imposed tariffs and trade wars, particularly against China and traditional allies

Undermined multilateralism, damaging America’s global credibility

These actions reduced the effectiveness of U.S. soft power, causing allies to question American leadership — while giving room for nations like China to expand their influence in global development and diplomacy.

The Consequences of Undermining Smart Power

By de-emphasizing soft power tools and over-relying on coercion and nationalism, the U.S. under Trump lost ground in global influence. Smart power — which integrates diplomacy, aid, alliances, and military deterrence — was effectively sidelined.

Nations that successfully use smart power, blending hard strength with cultural and moral influence, tend to sustain long-term global leadership. America’s post-WWII dominance was built not just on weapons and wealth, but on the perception that it stood for freedom, opportunity, and partnership.

America’s soft power was the key reason why other countries chose to align with the United States. Many nations were not interested in aligning with China or Russia. However, this situation may change in the future.

Initiatives such as USAID and educational scholarships, including Ph.D. programs, played a role in preventing people from being drawn toward anti-American terrorism. However, the U.S. is now losing that positive image.

In short, when the world’s positive perception of America erodes, so does its influence in the global arena.

Conclusion

Hard power may win wars, but soft power wins hearts. The Trump administration’s retreat from diplomacy and global engagement weakened America’s ability to shape the world on its terms. In an era of rising authoritarian influence and global challenges, restoring smart power — by reinvesting in alliances, diplomacy, and development — remains essential for U.S. leadership.

America: a bad Autocratic leader?

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

America’s Global Interventions and Nuclear Politics: A Historical and Ethical Critique
By Dr Nelson Kattikat

Introduction

From the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States has intervened globally in ways that have caused mass destruction, political instability, and widespread ethical debate. This article critically examines the historical actions and moral implications of American global policies, particularly in the context of nuclear weapons, regime change, and international law.

  1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Origins of Nuclear Terror

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people—many of them civilians. Tens of thousands more suffered long-term effects from radiation. While the U.S. has claimed this action was necessary to end World War II, many historians argue it was a strategic display of power, not a military necessity.

Ethical Question: Does any nation have the moral authority to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

  1. Iraq 2003: Invasion Built on Falsehoods

In 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq, alleging the presence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs). These claims were later proven false—even acknowledged by their own governments.

Over 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war.

The fall of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum, contributing to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS.

Iraq remains politically unstable and economically weakened to this day.

Ethical Question: Can the deliberate destruction of a nation based on misinformation ever be justified in the name of peace?

  1. Nuclear Proliferation: The Politics of Double Standards

The U.S. continues to maintain over 5,000 nuclear warheads, yet aggressively opposes the development of nuclear capabilities in other nations. This inconsistency highlights a long-standing double standard:

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligates nuclear powers to disarm, yet key players like the U.S. and Russia continue to modernize their arsenals.

Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is not subject to international inspections, while Iran, which has no confirmed nuclear weapons, faces sanctions.

Nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea have developed nuclear capabilities in response to perceived threats, often citing U.S. aggression as justification.

Ethical Question: Why are nuclear weapons acceptable for some nations but not for others?

  1. Regime Change: Exporting Chaos in the Name of Democracy

The U.S. has a long history of overthrowing foreign governments under the banner of protecting democracy, often replacing them with authoritarian regimes:

Iran (1953): The CIA deposed elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, reinstating the Shah’s monarchy.

Chile (1973): U.S.-backed forces removed President Salvador Allende, leading to a brutal dictatorship under Pinochet.

Libya (2011): NATO intervention led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, plunging the country into ongoing civil war.

Ethical Question: What moral authority allows one nation to interfere in the sovereignty of others?

  1. Selective Justice: The Hypocrisy of International Law

International responses to conflicts often reveal a pattern of geopolitical favoritism:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was met with sanctions, global condemnation, and war crimes investigations.

Israel’s repeated military actions in Gaza are met with continued U.S. military aid, amounting to over $3 billion annually.

The UN Security Council grants veto power to five nations (U.S., Russia, China, France, U.K.), often paralyzing global consensus.

Ethical Question: Can international law truly serve justice if it is shaped by the interests of the powerful few?

Conclusion: Rethinking Global Power and Ethics

While American interventions are frequently framed as efforts to promote democracy and protect human rights, historical evidence suggests they often advance strategic and economic interests. A truly just world requires:

Accountability for all nations—powerful or not.

Equality in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Respect for national sovereignty and international law.

A critical, informed global citizenry.

“The law of the powerful will never be the law of justice.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

President’s Mental Status Examination

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Mental Status examination of A President
By Dr. Nelsonkattikat

1. General Appearance and Behavior

Well-built, tall, well-nourished, appears middle-aged, with a distinctive hairstyle, tanned complexion, and formal attire, often preferring blue suits, white shirts, and red ties. Hygiene and self-care are adequate. His behavior is often characterized as confident, even to the point of a God complex, assertive, and at times combative. His body language includes strong hand gestures, especially pointing with his index finger, and an upright posture.

Psychomotor activity is increased.

Rapport can be established with difficulty, as he seems restless to questions, especially related to Musk and Putin.

2. Speech

Clear, coherent, and mostly relevant. He has a unique way of speaking, often using short, repetitive phrases and superlatives like “tremendous,” “the best,” “America first,” and similar expressions. There are instances of clang associations, along with silly jokes. His speech is direct, informal, fast, and sometimes with an intention to grab public attention, often controversial, with a tendency to make off-the-cuff remarks. His speech output is high, with medium to high volume, a distinctive melody, and prosody, often shifting between medium and high volumes as like ocean waves
Content: I am the elected President. Law makers, Judges  must obey me.Often uses,Phrases like “Fake news,” “Biden government’s fault,”…

3. Mood and Affect

His mood fluctuates between enthusiasm, anger, and defiance, depending on the context.Emotionally appears to be stable but occasionally superfluous. No empathy. It seems to be appropriate to situation , except during discussions with Zelensky. He often displays high energy and confidence in public settings but can show frustration or irritation when challenged.Unable to tolerate criticism. His affect tends to be congruent, expressive, with exaggerated facial expressions and gestures like a magician.

4. Thought

Always thinks like a businessman, profit-oriented. His thinking style seems to prioritize immediate results, focusing on personal success, self-image boosting, gaining leadership roles, or taking undue credit for gains made by other Presidents He often frames issues in binary terms (winners vs. losers, strong vs. weak). He believes nothing is impossible and sees himself as the savior of the world, especially America. He tends to prioritize his own interpretations of events, sometimes contrasting with mainstream perspectives.

5. Perception

He perceives himself as a strong leader and a “fighter” against perceived political adversaries and media bias.His perception of events and facts is sometimes questioned, as he has been known to promote conspiracy theories or challenge widely accepted information.
Perceptual abnormality:He has no hallucination.

6. Cognition (Higher Mental Functions)

President has demonstrated strategic thinking in business and politics, successfully branding himself and winning the presidency despite his political inexperience. He relies heavily on instincts and personal experience rather than detailed policy analysis. His decision-making style appears quick and reactive, rather than deeply analytical. Cognitive biases are noted on topics such as the Ukraine war, NATO, foreign policy, USAID, and immigrants.he seems to have colour blindness, with mexican boarder phobia.

7. Thought content? Grandiose

8. Insight

Social Insight:President demonstrates insight into media dynamics and public influence, effectively shaping narratives to such an extent of a lie that resonate with his base.However, at times, he shows excessive attachment to figures like Elon Musk and Putin. Detachment to Africa, Mexico.
Personal Insight: Poor. He lacks introspection.His self-perceptionof himself as a successful, historically significant person is ok but can sometimes appear grandiose.

9. Judgment

Personal Judgment:President’s personal judgment is often seen as bold, unfiltered, but grandiose, and driven by instincts rather than traditional political norms. Narcissistic tendencies are observed at times.

Social Judgment: His social judgment is reflected in his interactions with world leaders, the media, and public speeches, often polarizing opinions. Sometimes, it is grossly impaired. For example, he advised people to drink Lysol to kill the COVID-19 virus during the pandemic.

Test Judgmentand abstract thinking:When asked to him:
“Read following test situation and comment”:

A house on fire: “Ukraine is on fire. Strong leadership is needed. Zelensky better resign; otherwise, the country won’t exist.

A man lying on the road: “He must be an immigrant, deported immediately to his country. Better to be in shackles.”

A sealed, stamped, addressed envelope on the street: “Might suspect election fraud or that it’s from Putin, referencing past controversies.”
Judgment and abstract thinking,Rating: Impulsive/Controversial.Concrete.

10. Memory

Short-term memory: Good.

Long-term memory: Occasionally impaired.
President has made several statements over the years that he later contradicted or changed his stance on. Here are some notable examples:

1. COVID-19 and the Pandemic Response

Before: “It’s going to disappear. One day—it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.”

Later: “I always knew this was a real pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

2. Inflation

Before: “If I am the president, there will not be any inflation. Prices will come down.”

After becoming president: “There will be inflation in the first few months; prices may go up.”

3. Zelensky

Before: “Zelensky is honest, bold, and strong.”

Later: “Zelensky is like a salesman, weak.”

11.Abstract Thinking:

Similarities

Question: What do the following have in common?

Chair and desk?
  Answer:”I am stopping USAID. No more chairs and desks needed for Africans from American tax payers money.”

(expected answer: both are furniture )

– Apple and pear?
  Answer:”We have to export more apples, pears to Gaza. Both are good to make money.”

( expected answer, both are fruits, eatables)

-Poem and statue?
Answer:”I never read any poems. Poems are foolish creations by lazy people. I like statues, especially if they are mine.We dont need th French statue, anymore”

(expected answer, both are artistic work)

Proverb test

Question:What do people mean when they say…?

– “Don’t cry over spilled milk.”
  Answer: “Accept what has happened with Zelensky and Putin, I dont wait for Nobel Prize for peace.”

– “A rolling stone gathers no moss.”
  Answer: ‘Agreed, I am a rolling stone, but only under the legs of Biden’s chair.!”

– “When the cat’s away, the mice will play.”
  Answer:”I like that play. Now I am playing it with Musk, sometimes with Europe and with Putin.

– “Fake news.” 
  Answer: “What should I do!. Let me tell you: Last night, when my wife pulled the blanket, I shouted in my sleep, “Fake news!”😀

“Barking dogs, seldom bite”:Are you making fun of me?

Abstract thinking: poor.

Impression :?
You can comment

A Burning Cigrette in Zelensky’s Pocket

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

A Burning Cigarette in the Pocket: Zelensky
By Dr. Nelson kattikat

Zelensky seems to be under immense anxiety. The old spark in his face is gone, and his eyes appear swollen with exhaustion. Beyond the physical toll of war, the emotional weight of leading a nation through devastation is etched into his expression. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, families torn apart, and lives lost. The once-inspiring leader now bears the burden of a country in ruins.

Adding to his struggles, Ukraine’s key ally, the U.S., has shifted its stance. Zelensky is no longer seen as the defender of democracy but as the aggressor who provoked Russia by pushing for NATO membership. The West, once united behind Ukraine, is now showing signs of fatigue. Military and financial aid are dwindling, leaving Ukraine increasingly isolated.

To make matters worse, the U.S. has not only questioned its earlier position that Russia was the aggressor, but is also demanding the return of $43 billion spent on Ukraine’s defense. Efforts have already begun to recover this amount through rare earth mineral extraction from Ukrainian soil. Meanwhile, Russia has captured 20% of Ukraine’s territory and officially declared it as its own. The question now is: even if the war ends, who guarantees that Russia won’t strike again?

Ukraine’s economy is in shambles. Key industries, infrastructure, and farmlands lie in ruins. Rebuilding will take decades, not just in terms of money but also in social and political stability—luxuries Ukraine no longer has. At the same time, Russia and its allies have reshaped the war’s narrative, making it harder for Zelensky to sustain international support.

Now, Zelensky is trapped—he has nothing left to bargain with and nothing left to fight with. His willingness to step down as President is a sign of both exhaustion and realism. He once stood as a symbol of defiance, but history may judge him by the harsh realities of war rather than his courage.

What comes next? Ukraine is now a pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game, caught between power struggles beyond its control. If Zelensky resigns, will it open the door for diplomacy, or is it simply the final admission of defeat? One thing is clear: for Ukraine, the road to recovery—both physically and psychologically—will be long and uncertain.

Donald Trump’s Leadership and the Ukraine Crisis: A Complex Scenario

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

by Dr. Nelsonkattikat

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has several notable qualities, one of which is his determination to follow through on decisions once they are made. However, in the current geopolitical climate, his ability to influence events as he once did seems diminished. Despite this, Trump has recently stepped forward with a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine, a move that has been seen as both bold and constructive by some observers. The global community largely desires peace, and Trump’s initiative aligns with this sentiment. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not been receptive to Trump’s proposal, primarily due to the strong backing Zelenskyy receives from the European Union (EU). The EU, for its part, is unlikely to easily concede the diplomatic credit to Trump if the war were to end under his influence.

Zelenskyy appears to be calculating that even if the U.S. withdraws its support for Ukraine, the country can continue to move forward with the EU’s assistance. In response, Trump has issued a stark warning, stating that “if the war does not end, Ukraine as a nation may not survive.” This statement underscores the high stakes involved and the urgency of resolving the conflict.

Trump has previously argued that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided if President Joe Biden had taken a more cautious approach. This perspective resonates with many who believe that the current administration’s policies have exacerbated the situation. At the same time, Zelenskyy seems to recognize that alienating Trump could be counterproductive. This has led to accusations that Zelenskyy is engaging in diplomatic maneuvering and spreading a comment as misinformation to Trump is the reason behind Trump’s faulty decision .

The global order is undergoing significant shifts. There is a growing possibility that global leadership could transition from the United States to Europe, particularly under the influence of the U.K., France, and Germany. The emergence of a new world order led by these nations is a development worth watching closely. Additionally, how major powers like India,China and Russia respond to these changes will be critical in shaping the future geopolitical landscape.

In summary, while Trump’s efforts to end the Ukraine war are commendable, the complexities of international politics and the shifting dynamics of global power make the path to peace fraught with challenges. The world is watching closely to see how these developments unfold and what they mean for the future of international relations.