John Law (10:16)
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of Trump's speech, with many saying it embarrassed the U.S. others suggest Trump's evolving stance on Ukraine is encouraging but remains fickle. In msnbc, Zezhan Aleem called the speech mortifying for America. Trump was bogged down by constant frivolous tangents and a fixation on trumpeting, often deceptively, what he counts as his accomplishments. And given that the backdrop of Trump's speech is an all out assault on democracy in his own country, his lecturing world leaders on how to run a great nation was shocking in its audacity, alim said. More significantly, he worked to undermine the credibility of the UN as an institution for peacekeeping and global governance. Trump falsely claimed to have ended seven unending wars in seven months this term, and he declared it's Too bad I had to do these things instead of the United nations doing them. Trump praised his own record constantly in what at times resembled more of a State of the Union speech than a UN speech. He rambled about how the US had become the hottest country anywhere in the world and trashed countries that don't share his worldview. He trumpeted his extreme right wing crackdown on immigration as a model for the world, Aleem wrote. There's something about Trump's degradation of the republic that hits harder before an international audience. Sometimes it feels as if the full impact of what Trump is putting us through is most evident when we're forced to think about it from the eyes of outsiders. In cnn, Stephen Collinson said Trump's write about everything rant offers no answers to a world on the brink. Tensions have hit Cold War levels in Eastern Europe after Poland threatened to shoot down any more encroaching Russian aircraft. Strange drones, possibly Moscow's, are zipping around over Scandinavia. Fears are growing of an Intifada style eruption on the west bank if Israel follows through on hints of annexation to add to its onslaught on Gaza, collinson wrote. Yet President Donald Trump, who holds the job once reserved for the leader of the free world, had no words of reassurance or poetic invocations of democratic values for America's alarmed allies in an address to the UN General Assembly. The confusing new developments on Ukraine show why, for all Trump's contemptuous hostility, foreign powers, especially those in Europe, still try to work with him, to direct him and to avoid the open confrontation some of his threats might merit, Collinson said. But the first speech to the UN of the president's second term still offered a sobering picture of the new global reality. The United States, the nation that did more than any other to build the United nations and to support it for so many decades, is now its most vicious critic, a situation that raises questions about the once vital world body's capacity to survive in its current form. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right mostly supports Trump's criticism of the UN and some suggest the speech was directed at populist movements in Europe. Others say Trump should follow through on his critiques by trying to fix the UN in Red State, Strafe wrote about the true purpose of Trump's speech. Trump is not interested in the approval of anyone in the UN and no one thinks laughing at him is going to dissuade him from his America first philosophy, strafe said. Tuesday's speech at the UN was not aimed at the diplomats in the room or those watching remotely. It wasn't aimed at the leaders of governments. It really wasn't even aimed at the world. It was, in my opinion, aimed directly at populist movements gaining momentum in northern and Eastern Europe. The goal was to put Trump and his successor at the helm of an international movement to make Western civilization great again. The message was leaders have sold you out. If you don't act, your countries will be swamped by foreigners who don't share your culture. Without a reliable energy supply and slamming the door on Third World migration, Europe as we know it will cease to exist. Trump framed the situation of national leadership that has allowed the situation to develop, serving as a warning call to populations who are inattentive and being taken advantage of strafe route. All in all, it suggests that Trump's retreat from the EU and NATO is more of a rebuke of national elites than a withdrawal from the theater. In the Washington Post, John R. Bolton argued Trump should fix the UN, not just grandstand. With the UN turning 80 years old, now is precisely the right moment to focus on the UN's failings and even to start imagining some remedies, Bolton said. The General assembly has almost never had a coherent purpose other than offering a backdrop for authoritarian leaders to practice their rhetoric, and the Security Council is as gridlocked now as during the height of the Cold War. Disputes among its five permanent members mean that truly important issues are addressed elsewhere and brought to the Council only for a splash of UN holy water, if they're brought at all. Meanwhile, huge organizations such as the World bank group, technically affiliated with the un, deserve scrutiny and enormous reform or retrenchment, especially given their programmatic overlap with various UN components and regional development banks, bolton wrote. To make a lasting impact, hard work will be required. Washington needs to assess the merits of each of the agencies that make up the ungain. The system is resilient. It knows how to theatrically gasp at any insults hurled its way while continuing to do business as usual. Drive by speeches, even those of Trumpian duration, just come and go like all the other hot air that has coursed through the UN headquarters for decades. Alright, that is it for what writers from the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to what writers abroad are saying. Some writers say Trump failed to account for how his administration has weakened the international order. Others argue it epitomized Trump's vision of a U S led global order. The Le Mans editorial board said Trump has set out to undermine the credibility of the United Nations. No one can dispute the fact that the UN is struggling. Its marginalization and powerlessness to affect the world's major ongoing conflicts, be they in Ukraine, Gaza or Sudan, serve as unfortunate daily reminders of its troubles. The rise of groups such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization also reflects the frustration among Global south countries, the board wrote. Examining the roots of this paralysis inevitably leads to highlighting the responsibility of the U.S. the country that set the precedent for force to have supremacy over international law with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. That same country now paralyzes the United Nations Security Council. The lecture Trump delivered to the nations on September 23 also followed the brutal elimination of US international aid programs, the devastating effects of which are now beginning to be felt. Trump's latest about face on Ukraine, as he now claims that Kyiv is capable of retaking all the territory that Russia had conquered, only increased the confusion, the board said. Trump gave the embarrassing impression of being a passenger who rails and grumbles about the aimless drift of the ship after having made its rudder unusable and slashed its sails. In the Spectator, Sam Olson wrote about Trump's new World Order. Trump's support for Ukraine was presented not as multilateral solidarity but as an extension of the sovereignty first doctrine he set out from the podium. Olson said Trump's message on Ukraine was striking less for any promise of American firepower than for how seamlessly it slotted into his border creed. He threatened Moscow with powerful tariffs and told Zelensky that Ukraine could fight and win back all of Ukraine. In its original form, the meaning was unmistakable. Sovereignty should be defended, but with national tools like tariffs, economic pressure and demands on Europe. By contrast, international institutions or indefinite US Commitments are not the answer. The logic fits neatly with how he sees alliances. For Trump, they are transactional, conditional and designed to protect America's primacy rather than sustain any abstract order, olson wrote. This was not just another Trump tirade. It was a doctrine delivered in broad brushstrokes. But internally consistent sovereignty was cast as the only safeguard against threats, whether from migrants, hostile states or the Green Lobby. Multilateral institutions, once the proud architecture of the US Bill order, were painted as part of the problem for the president. They are complicit in disorder, not guarantors of it. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right.
