Coin Press - Rebellion against Trump: "Ready for War?"

NYSE - LSE

CMSC	-0.09%	22.33	$
RIO	1.62%	105.35	$
BCC	0.67%	71.14	$
BCE	0.08%	24.59	$
JRI	-0.23%	12.8	$
BTI	1.49%	62.32	$
CMSD	-0.18%	22.26	$
RBGPF	0%	60.72	$
GSK	0.34%	53.04	$
RYCEF	2.63%	17.5	$
NGG	0.39%	81.84	$
RELX	1.87%	33.74	$
AZN	-1.97%	178.75	$
BP	0.23%	42.78	$
VOD	1.74%	15.53	$

Rebellion against Trump: "Ready for War?"

Donald Trump’s re-ascension to the U.S. presidency in January 2025 has sparked a series of protests and statements of defiance across multiple continents, with some activists and commentators adopting the provocative slogan, "We are ready for war." While the phrase has gained traction among certain groups, it remains a symbolic expression of opposition rather than a literal call to arms, rooted in concerns over Trump’s policies and their global implications.

The unrest began shortly after Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2025, when he reinstated his "America First" doctrine, announcing plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time and impose tariffs on European and Chinese goods. In response, demonstrations erupted in several major cities. On 25 January, an estimated 10,000 people gathered in Paris, according to French police figures, where activist Élise Moreau, a known figure in the climate movement, coined the phrase "We are ready for war" during a speech outside the U.S. Embassy. Moreau clarified in a later interview with Le Monde that her words were metaphorical, intended to signify "a battle of ideas and values" against what she called Trump’s "anti-globalist agenda."

In Europe, the backlash has been particularly pronounced. On 3 February, Berlin saw a protest of 8,000 people, per German authorities, with banners reading "Nein zu Trump" ("No to Trump") and demands for the European Union to strengthen its autonomy from U.S. influence. The German Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 5 February, expressing "concern" over Trump’s proposed NATO funding cuts, which he reiterated in a speech on 1 February in Florida, threatening to reduce U.S. contributions unless allies increased their defence spending.

Across the Channel, the United Kingdom has also witnessed dissent. On 10 March, approximately 5,000 protesters marched through London, according to Metropolitan Police estimates, organised by a coalition of environmental and human rights groups. Labour MP Zara Khan addressed the crowd, criticising Trump’s tariff threats, which the UK Treasury warned could cost British exporters £2 billion annually based on 2024 trade data. Khan called for "resolute opposition" but avoided endorsing the "war" rhetoric directly.

In Asia, reactions have been more restrained but no less significant. South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "deep unease" on 15 February after Trump suggested renegotiating the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, a move analysts say could disrupt Seoul’s economy, which exported $84 billion in goods to the U.S. in 2024, per Korea Customs Service data. Meanwhile, in Japan, a small demonstration of 300 people occurred in Tokyo on 20 February, according to local police, with participants citing fears over Trump’s hints at reducing U.S. troop presence in the region, as reported by The Japan Times.

Trump has dismissed the international criticism. At a rally in Ohio on 12 March, attended by an estimated 15,000 supporters per local officials, he labelled the protests "a tantrum by sore losers" and vowed to prioritise American interests "no matter the noise from abroad." His administration has yet to respond formally to the growing unrest, though White House Press Secretary John Carter stated on 16 March that "the president welcomes dialogue with allies" but will not bow to external pressure.

Experts caution against overinterpreting the "war" rhetoric. Dr. Maria Costa, a political scientist at the University of Oxford, told this publication, "The phrase is a hyperbolic signal of frustration, not a policy proposal. It reflects genuine fears about trade wars, climate inaction, and geopolitical instability." Data from the World Trade Organization supports some of these concerns, projecting that Trump’s proposed 20% tariffs could reduce global trade volume by 1.5% in 2026 if implemented.

As of now, no official coordinated international response has emerged, though activists are planning a "Global Day of Action" on 1 April, with events scheduled in at least 12 cities worldwide, according to organisers’ statements on X. Governments, meanwhile, appear focused on diplomacy. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Anna Berger are set to meet U.S. Secretary of State Michael Hayes in Brussels next week to discuss NATO and trade, per a 17 March EU press release.

While the "rebellion" remains largely symbolic, its scale and intensity underscore the polarising impact of Trump’s leadership on the global stage. Whether it evolves into a substantive challenge or fades as rhetoric will depend on the actions of both his administration and the international community in the months ahead.

Embraer’s 950% surge

China’s profitless push

Alert in Trump’s America

Why China props up Putin

Zelenskyy anti-graft gamble

Seven-Day Sanctions Showdown

Trump vs. EU: A good deal?

Japan's financial precipice

Iraq vs. Iran – The end?

France's debt is growing

Azerbaijan defies Russia

Geopolitics: Peru's balancing act

Featured

Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Beijing's new Taiwan playbook

Beijing's military machinery and political ambitions have moved it closer to a point where it could attempt to seize Taiwan by force. Decades of double‑digit defence spending have yielded advanced amphibious assault vessels, fleets of hypersonic and ballistic missiles and an air force that can saturate airspace around the island. Naval analysts note that the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s new Type 054B guided‑missile frigates incorporate artificial‑intelligence‑enabled sensors to improve anti‑submarine warfare and fleet air defence and can undertake long‑range escort missions. Dozens of civilian‑flagged research vessels, operating under the cover of scientific exploration, have spent years mapping the seabed across the western Pacific and as far afield as Guam and Hawaii to improve Chinese submarine navigation and to erode the United States’ traditional advantage in undersea warfare. Expanded missile launch infrastructure in Xinjiang, featuring scores of launch pads, is intended to increase the survivability of China’s land‑based nuclear forces.Yet despite these capabilities, Beijing has shown little appetite for a near‑term invasion. A recent threat assessment by the United States’ intelligence community concluded that Chinese leaders do not currently plan to execute an invasion by 2027 and lack a fixed timetable for unification. Taiwan’s defence ministry concurs that China’s build‑up is relentless but emphasises that deterrence, rather than assumptions about invasion windows, will shape Beijing’s calculations. Analysts argue that a war would trigger unprecedented economic costs. Taiwan’s semiconductor industry underpins global technology supply chains and about a fifth of world trade transits the Taiwan Strait. Any conflict that closed this artery would reverberate through financial markets, manufacturing and energy supplies. Even without U.S. intervention, Chinese leadership would risk social stability at home if a miscalculated assault stalled or provoked severe sanctions.Against this backdrop, Beijing has refined what some analysts describe as a grey‑zone strategy — a web of coercive measures designed to wear down Taiwan’s morale and manoeuvre it towards “reunification” without firing a shot. People’s Liberation Army aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defence identification zone more than three hundred times a month after William Lai’s 2024 election, only for the number of incursions to fall sharply in 2026 as planners redistributed sorties to training and maintenance. China’s coast guard now conducts routine multi‑ship patrols in the restricted waters around Kinmen and Pratas, two Taiwanese‑administered archipelagos close to the mainland, to normalise jurisdictional claims and erode Taiwan’s threat awareness. As part of the large‑scale “Strait Thunder 2025A” and “Justice Mission 2025” exercises, the People’s Liberation Army practised cutting power and blockading Taiwan’s liquefied natural gas terminals — a rehearsal for imposing energy strangulation during a future crisis.Energy insecurity is a key prong of Beijing’s hybrid approach. Taiwan imports around 97 percent of its energy, with liquefied natural gas accounting for roughly half of electricity generation. When war in Iran temporarily choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year, Chinese‑language social media channels flooded TikTok and Xiaohongshu with ominous videos claiming Taiwan’s gas reserves would expire within a fortnight and extolling “peaceful unification” as the only remedy. Officials from the Taiwan Affairs Office even offered to supply electricity and gas from the mainland as soon as Taiwan surrendered its sovereignty. Taiwan’s government countered by publicising the diversification of its imports, increasing strategic reserves and conducting joint navy‑coast‑guard drills to escort fuel tankers through potential blockades. Such moves aim to reassure citizens and blunt the psychological impact of Beijing’s energy narratives.Political infiltration forms another component of the grey‑zone campaign. Beijing has long supported parties in Taiwan that advocate a looser relationship with the mainland, but recent cases show a willingness to back actors whose public stance on unification is ambiguous. Taiwanese courts convicted a former spokesperson for the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) after she accepted funds from Chinese handlers and provided contact lists of government agencies. Investigators say the case is not isolated: election interference and covert recruitment have targeted both the centrist TPP and elements of the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). At the international level, Chinese diplomats persuade or pressure host governments to label Taiwan as a province of China; Taiwan stayed away from this year’s World Trade Organization ministerial in Yaoundé after delegates were issued documents bearing that designation.This cognitive warfare extends to culture and education. President William Lai has warned that video‑sharing platforms may be used to cultivate the notion that Taiwanese and mainland Chinese people are “one family” and to foster resignation towards annexation. His administration has banned certain Chinese apps from public‑sector devices and proposed curriculum changes to strengthen civic identity and debunk disinformation. Opinion polls still show a solid majority of Taiwanese identifying as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, suggesting that Beijing’s narrative campaigns have yet to shift the island’s self‑perception.While China deploys these non‑military tools, Taiwan is struggling to adapt its defence posture. The DPP has proposed a special budget worth around US$40 billion to procure hundreds of thousands of unmanned systems, develop an integrated air and missile defence network and fund the domestic arms industry. Opposition parties controlling the legislature have delayed the budget, preferring a smaller package focused on conventional platforms such as artillery and anti‑tank missiles. Delays threaten to slow deliveries of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, self‑propelled howitzers and anti‑tank weapons from the United States. At the same time, Taipei is investing in its first domestically built submarine and plans to upgrade two Dutch‑built boats from the 1980s. Such measures are meant to raise the cost of aggression and complicate any blockade.Elsewhere in the region, countries are recalibrating their own strategies in anticipation of cross‑strait tensions. Japan has acquired Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States and is modifying its destroyers to carry them, signalling a shift towards a counter‑strike doctrine that can threaten missile launch platforms on the Chinese coast. The Philippines and Japan have agreed to step up military intelligence sharing and have begun negotiating a boundary in their overlapping exclusive economic zones east of Taiwan. Manila is seeking Japanese anti‑submarine destroyers and anti‑ship missiles to bolster its navy. Such cooperation, alongside the United States’ continued security commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act, suggests that any attempt by Beijing to seal off the island would face a more coordinated regional response.Seen together, these developments reveal why Beijing may perceive hybrid coercion as “something better” than a risky assault. China’s ability to project force across the Taiwan Strait has improved markedly, but its leaders recognise that a failed invasion would jeopardise economic growth and political legitimacy. By combining military modernisation with psychological operations, energy leverage, political interference and calibrated maritime pressure, Beijing hopes to corrode Taiwan’s will and convince its citizens that unification is inevitable. Whether this strategy succeeds will depend on Taiwan’s resilience, the cohesion of its democratic institutions and the willingness of regional partners to deter aggression. For now, the contest remains a test not of who can fire the first shot, but of whose vision for the island’s future will ultimately prevail.