Ours is Bigger Than Yours: The World's Military and the Ultimate Outcome

There’s no question that the Untied States spends more on its military---$886 billion---than the next nine nations combined. That includes China ($296B), Russia ($109B), India ($84B), the UK ($75B), France ($61B), and Germany ($67B). That’s 40% of all military related expenditures in the world by just one country---the U.S.. But is it the largest military?

America has 1.328 million men and women in uniform. India has 1.455 million active duty personnel. Russia has 1.13 million. North Korea has 1.28 million active duty personnel. Nevertheless, the largest military in the world belongs to China. Their Peoples Liberation Army has 2.04 million.

However, these numbers are a bit deceiving. Although China has the largest number of active duty troops, when reservists and paramilitary are included, China has only the fourth largest military in the world  with a grand total of 3,045,000. India’s military jumps up to third place with 4,246,000 which includes 1,155,000 reservists and 1,616,050 paramilitary units (compared to China’s 510,000 reservists and 500,000 paramilitary).

Russia has a total of 3,203,000 under arms including 1,500,000 reservists and another 569.000 paramilitary. As an aside, Ukraine has only 990,000 individuals in uniform of which 730,000 are regular military with no reservists and 260,000 paramilitary (not including those forcibly conscripted).

The world’s largest military is actually North Korea which has essentially militarized its entire military age population! It has 1,280,000 regular troops, 600,000 reservists, and a whopping 5,7 million paramilitary personnel, bring its total to 7,580,000 men and women under arms. By comparison, South Korea has 3,100,000 reservists and 3,013,000 to augment its regular military of 500,000, bringing its total to 6,613,000, making it the second largest.  

As for the United States, we have 1,315,000 active duty personnel in addition to 797,200 reservists, bringing our total up to 2,112,00 individuals in uniform. While the U.S. doesn’t officially have a “paramilitary”, we just might have something a little bit better and that’s the millions of U.S. citizens who come packing.

There’s an old expression that America could never be invaded because behind every rock, tree, and bush, will be someone with gun. Although there are no official numbers,  estimates are that approximately 32% of Americans own at least one gun. That’s about 82 million gun toting Americans.

Of those, some 14.4 million classify themselves as active hunters, meaning they’re probably a pretty good shot (additionally, some 25.87 million Americans has hunted at least once and those numbers don’t included the number of individuals who shot skeet, target shoot, and enjoy “plinking”  (shooting homemade targets like garbage can lids, bottles, cans, and the occasional speed limit sign).  

Broken down by individual household, guns can be found in 44% of households. While other countries, like Switzerland and Serbia, have high gun ownership, no other nation even comes close to the U.S. in terms of gun ownership.

As an aside, Montana has the largest percentage of gun owners of any state with 66.3% of residents owning at least one firearms followed by Wyoming with 66.2%. It’s 60% in Idaho and 59% in West Virginia, while around the Ozarks, it averages 56% of households. In Kentucky, it’s just over half with 54.6% of the population owning at least one firearm. Texas is surprisingly low, with just 46% of the population own a gun, which is less than in Maine where 47%  and Vermont at 51% owning a firearm.

In New York, despite its reputation for gun related violence, just 20% of the population legally own a pistol or rifle while in nearby Connecticut it’s 24%.  In California, 28% of it residents legally own a gun, matching Illinois. New Jersey and Massachusetts has the least with about 14.9% of the population own a gun. Finally, despite being a “Southern” state, gun ownership in Florida is only 35%. It must be due to all those Yankee carpetbaggers.

Another factor to consider, like it or not, is that guns are a part of the American persona. They go hand-in-hand with freedom and independence.  It’s just not part of our history, it’s part of our culture and our collective American mythology as a nation from the frontiersmen and “mountain men” to the Wild West and our very founding as a nation.

Firearms and the notion of self-defense from a tyrannical government was seen as so important, ownership of firearms was built into our Constitution.  As long as Americans own firearms, this country will never be invaded. But there is more to national defense than just pistols and rifles.

Who has the largest air force? In terms of most modern and powerful, that goes hands down to the United States with roughly 14,486 manned and unmanned aircraft. Russia is ranked second in the world with approximately 4,211 aircraft while China possesses 3,304. Next on the list comes India with 2,296, Japan with 1,459, and Pakistan following closely behind with 1,434. South Korea has 1,171 aircraft compared to North Korea which possesses just 951.

 It bears mentioning that the individual branches of the U.S. military have more airplanes, helicopters, and drones than the entire air forces of most countries!  For example, the U.S. Army has some 5,714 aircraft compared to entire Russia military which has a total number of planes and helicopters of 4,211. Of course, being former Navy, I have to mention that the best pilots in the world are U.S. Navy pilots.

Speaking of the Navy, who has the world’s largest seagoing fleet? In terms of numbers, the largest fleet belongs to Russia. Once virtually landlocked due to a lack of warm water ports, Russia now has a fleet of some 781 ships. It’s worth noting too that Russia built the largest submarine ever as part of “Project 941---Akula”, a nuclear powered Typhoon class “boomer” with a displacement of 48,000 tons and a length of 574 feet and a width of 75 feet, it is truly a leviathan.   

 China is second with 730 deep water ships, including two operational aircraft carriers (and a third on the drawing board) along with three helicopter carriers. As an aside, China also has the most modern military navy in the world, turning out more new ships than any nation. 70% of its ships were built after 2010 compared to just 25% of the U.S. Navy.

Third place belongs to North Korea with 505 ships, though analysis question their operational status given shortages of replacement parts. North Korea also doesn’t possess any aircraft or helicopter support ships (South Korea has 200 military ships). Next, in fourth place, is the United States Navy with 11 aircraft carriers and nine support helicopter carrier ships.  

The U.S. Department of Defense published a report in 2024 noting that the Navy was badly in need of a total fleet overhaul; everything from drydocking its fleet for a refit to retiring some of its submarines, destroyers, and even a carrier or two (the DoD was also critical of the wartime capabilities of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army. Only the Marines were said to be a proper fighting strength).

Following the U.S. is Sweden, which has traditionally been a seagoing nation for centuries. Sweden currently has 353 deep water naval vessels, followed by Indonesia with 333 military ships. Italy has 309 while India and Thailand have 294 and 293 respectively. The largest navy in South America is Columbia which stands at 237 followed by Mexico with 194. In Africa, Algeria has the continent’s largest navy with 213 ships. Egypt is second with 140 ships.

Speaking of submarines, at 70, all nuclear, submarines, the U.S. Navy possesses the world’s largest submarine fleet. Second place belongs to Russia with 63 nuclear and conventional submarines. The Chinese have 61, which includes nuclear and electric diesel. Their emphasis is primarily the Indian and Pacific oceans.  

In fourth place is Iran which operates 25 conventional attack and miniature submarines throughout the Persian Gulf.  Egypt has the largest submarine fleet in Africa with eight Type 209  conventional subs it acquired from Germany (who know a few things about submarines). Algeria has six and South Africa has three, also Type 209.

Lastly, nukes. What nation has the most? Russia is believed to have 5,500 nuclear tipped missiles in various stages of readiness. The U.S has some 5,000 nuclear armed missiles, also in varying stages of readiness. China too has nuclear missiles  (around 600) as does France (290), the UK (225), India (180), Pakistan (170), and Israel (90).

North Korea claims to have around 50 while Iran is desperately trying to become the newest member of “global damnation club”.  It deserves mentioning that in terms of missiles in general, Russia is also thought to possess the largest number of missiles, especially Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or “ICBMs”, both nuclear and conventional. China is also busily expanding its missile capabilities. 

All told,  there are approximately 12,331 nuclear weapons at play, down from about 70,000 during the Cold War. These range from so-called “tactic”  or low yield warheads which have a explosive capability 20 times that of what was used as Hiroshima and Nagasaki up to a three stage thermonuclear warhead (the Soviet era “Tsar Bomba”) whose explosive output is 1,570 times that which was used on the two Japanese cities. Anyway, you look at it, in a nuclear exchange only cockroaches would survive.

Other missiles systems being made operational include hypersonic missiles which travel at Mac 5 or five times the speed of sound (and thus may be able to evade various anti-missile defense systems) as well as GBU 7a/b “bunker buster” which can penetrate 200 feet into the earth or through 20 feet of solid concrete. The EMP” of electro-magnetic pulse bomb which disrupts or destroys anything electronic or electrical  such as power grids, communication systems, computer systems, electrical circuits, and so forth.

In the final analysis, we seem to be pretty good at developing ways to kill each other. In a world where poverty, hunger, and disease is on the rise, and budgets funding social safety nets are being cut, the budget for the “defense” is virtually unlimited. We kill to gain access to and protect resources or global markets. Besides, war is profitable.

War artificially stimulate economies and reduces unemployment and regulates “excess” populations. Most of our scientific and medical advances are byproducts of weapons research (but then, so are many of our new diseases). It pits us against each other in order to protect the “haves” from the “have nots”. Hell, we’ll even kill each other over whose god or prophet is the most benign. Many of us pray for a divine or even alien intervention to put a stop to our species based insanity. But the sad truth is that no one or nothing is coming from the sky or anywhere else to save us. We’re on our own babies.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

The World’s Largest Armies

Mapped: US States With The Most Guns

Largest Air Forces in the World

U.S. Military Working on Rebuild Readiness and Modernize

Military Readiness

Why the U.S. Military is in Serious Trouble

Top 10 countries with the largest submarine fleets in 2025

Project 941 submarine

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

Trump Getting Real with Zelensky: Find Peace with Russia or No More Money

 

Much has already been made of the heated meeting between President Vladmir Zelensky of Ukraine and President Donald Trump and Vice President  JD Vance.  President Trump, in effect, told Zelensky to make peace with Putin or he was taking away the keys to Ukraine’s war machine…and put a damn tie on where he’s at it!

Zelensky seems to believe that with U.S. financial backing, he will be able to stalemate Putin virtually indefinitely, perhaps even in the long run, obtain NATO membership. That’s something Trump opposes. Putin has attempted several overtures at peace, which Zelensky has essentially blown off like, and why not? He’s got the biggest bully in the world in his court, the United States.     

Trump used the meeting to make a very public statement to Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, to Putin, and to the world---no more money, no more armament and no mineral deal until Zelensky puts on his big boy pants and can set down for a serious discussion about peace with Russia, otherwise we walk, and he can deal with one very angry Russian bear.

 NATO, which also heavily depends on the US, can do as it pleases, but the US needs to set this one out thank you very much should they continue to poke the bear (and kudos to Italy’s Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, for rejecting UK-French plan to send European troops to Ukraine). It’s one thing to come to the aid of ally being attacked, but when they bring it on themselves, maybe a lesson in “told-you-so” diplomacy is in order.

Putin, on the other hand, has committed much of his military to what amounts to a slow bleed of Ukraine’s economy and military. His has activated antiquated weapon systems (such as outdated tanks) and even employed North Korean troops in what amounts to a ”fight for food” deal for the bankrupt Communist state.

The only sensible reason for Putin to do this is one of taking a measured stance against Ukraine. Putin didn’t start the war. Zelensky and NATO did (with a little help from a former president’s son looking to score a big financial payday). Putin has been consistent his insistence that NATO missiles and armament will not be deployed along his border with Ukraine. Zelensky and NATO thought that by playing the U.S. card, Putin could be intimidated. That wasn’t going to happen

Putin is not a spineless leader of the sort that Europe has produced in abundance lately (for an example, look at their immigration disaster and its effect on crime and their culture). Putin is very intelligent. He was a senior KGB officer. He doesn’t bluff. Unlike European leaders, he doesn’t care if you call him names.  However, since the fall of the USSR and Soviet Russia, their leaders, starting with Mikhail Gorbachev, have tried  once again to build bridges to the West.

Ever since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has wanted to join with the West and act as a bridge between East and West. At one point,  they even asked to join NATO and was rejected out of hand and perhaps justifiably so. With the end of the Cold War, there had been a lot of talk about dismantling NATO.

Therefore, NATO’s justification for its continued existence depended on having a bad guy and that bad guy is Putin. It’s also why many neo-cons and policy gamers are anxious to start a new Cold War. War is profitable---cold or hot. It bears mentioning that the establishment of the Warsaw Pact came about only after the creation of NATO and then with the intention of being a defensive deterrent, presumably against the same military and industrial complex President Eisenhower spoke of in his 1961 “Farewell Address to the Nation”.   

In 1990, as the Warsaw Pact nations began to fall, Secretary of State James Baker informed Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze (in the presence of Gorbachev) that once the unification of Germany was complete, NATO had no intention of advancing “one inch to the east”, and yet within ten years, that’s exactly what happened. Gorbachev saw it as a time to restart and one of openness or as he called it, “Perestroika”. As Gorbachev said at the time, “we are duty bound to learn to live in peace”.

One by one, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland (1999),  Hungary (1999), Romania (2004), Czechia (1999), Bulgaria (2004), the Baltic states (2004), and so forth were admitted into NATO, and each time Russian leaders protested through all the proper international channels and were ignored.

At first, the Russians were assured there would be no more, until there was. But each time a country joined, NATO missiles were deployed all along their border. As a result, Russia was slowly helmed in. It would be like Russian missiles being deployed along our southern border, first in the numerous Caribbean islands one by one, until finally, in Mexico along the Rio Grande.

What if the Russians started deploying missiles along the Canadian border just like what happened after Norway and Denmark joined NATO in 1949, Finland in 2023, or Sweden in 2024.   How would you expect Washington would react?

Actually, you don’t even have to imagine. That was what the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was all about. It was Russia’s response to U.S. nuclear tipped intermediate range “Jupiter” missiles previously being deployed in Turkey (which had joined NATO in 1952).

Amusingly, then Soviet Premier Khrushchev would walk visitors to his vacation home on the Black Sea to the balcony and hand them  a pair of binoculars, asking “what do you see?”. They typically replied, “I see the sky” or “I see the water”. He would then look through the binoculars and bellow “I see American missiles in Turkey aimed at my dacha!”.

It seems that everyone knew that a NATO presence in Ukraine would be the straw to break the bear’s back, yet they expected Putin to do nothing but grouse and saber rattle like the West does, but that didn’t happen. Putin secured the Crimea, which has been a Russian possession since 1783 when it was annexed by Catherine the Great. It has a majority Russian population. Strategically, the Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, at Sebastopol, which is their version of our naval base in San Diego.

Russian is taught in its schools and it’s the common language of its people. It was followed by a plebiscite, asking the citizens whether they wanted to remain apart of Russia or the Ukraine. The overwhelming majority said “Russia”.

But this had nothing to do with the history of the region, the will of the people, national sovereignty, or even the long standing presence of the Russian military in and around Sebastopol. This was about oil and gas, which had been discovered in abundance in the Black Sea, and western oil companies wanted it.

In addition to large reserves of oil and gas, the Ukraine has vast deposits of key minerals, much of it in the disputed Donbas Region which is occupied by Russian troops. The deal President Trump was willing to sign with President Zelensky would have allowed a U.S. presence in the Donbas (technically still belonging to Ukraine) to mine for deposits valuable minerals, with each country splitting the processes 50/50. It would enable the Ukraine to begin paying the U.S. back some of the billions it owes us in aid, retain Ukrainian soil, and help Ukraine to rebuild its infrastructure.

In addition, it would be an incentive for Putin’s troops to either withdraw from the areas being explored and mined, or perhaps even pull back altogether. After all, Putin doesn’t want to kill or injure U.S. civilians at any cost. It would serve as a de facto “economic buffer zone” without the need for a single pair of U.S. military boots on the ground and each side wins.

However, Zelensky needed to agree to a peace talks with Russia, and that’s where he has repeatedly dropped the ball. When it comes to power politics, Zelensky is out of his league. He’s a standup comedian turned politician unlike others who are politicians turned fools.  Accordingly, he got a dressing down in his meeting with Trump and Vice President Vance. He was put on notice that the U.S. would not finance his war with Russia indefinitely or for free.

Even during the early stages of WWII, before the U.S. was directly involved, Prime Minister Churchill gave the U.S. 99 year leases to bases on their island possessions in the Caribbean as a “down payment” and “thank you “ to all the war material and economic support we provided to England under the Lend Lease Act of 1941 (the act also extended to the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and other allied nations).   As of 2024, we have given Ukraine $174.2 billion dollars in aid (military and otherwise) while the European Union has given about $18 billion.

President Trump announced during his speech to Congress on March 4^th, that he had received a letter from Zelensky finally agreeing to sit down with Putin and hammer out some sort of peace deal. It may not be entirely to Zelensky’s liking, or that of Putin’s, but it will mean no more killing on either side and ending the destruction of Ukrainian cities and villages.

In addition, President Zelensky said in his letter to President Trump that he was still willing to sign the minerals agreement, which would be a good thing for the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine is a country with vast untapped economic potential, from the oil and gas reserves it does control, to its timber and mineral wealth, and it possesses the most fertile soil in Europe and quite possibly the world. (hence the moniker “breadbasket of Europe”).

This was also an education of sorts for Zelensky about what Otto von Bismarck called “Realpolitik”. Never disrespect your benefactor or take them for granted. By that, don’t show up in casual slacks and t-shirt and “knock-around” boots to meet the leader of a world power and expect to be given a virtual blank check for a never-ending war without a plan to pay them back.  America isn’t your ATM. Show some humility. Even Churchill arrived dressed to the nines with hat in hand and he offered at least island leases!  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

  Zelensky vows to ‘make things right’ with Trump and negotiate peace

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

4 Lessons to be learned from Zelensky’s White House Meeting

 

What they said: Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance’s heated argumentin the Oval Office

NATO Members

Russo-Ukrainian War  

Controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATOexpansion

Lend Lease Act

EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars)

No suit, no lunch, no respect: Zelenskyy-Trump feud startwith a fashion dig

2024: A Year in Review and a Look Ahead

There's no question that 2024 was one of the most pivotal years in recent history. It seems that practically everything was happening all at the same time, and the ripples it left with be felt for weeks, months, and even decades from now. In writing this week's article, it was difficult to decide what to include and what to leave out. Much of what we will witness over the upcoming 12 months and beyond have their roots in what we've jointly experienced. Here, then, are our top choices for the most significant events of 2024. 

Hamas and Israel

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy event of 2024 has been the war between Israel and Hamas. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been involved in 19 wars and conflicts. Beginning with its War of Independence, Israel has faced the combined military might of the Arab world (with Russian and Chinese aid) or financially.   In every encounter (with the exception of one, which was a preemptive strike), Israel has been attacked with little or no prior notice by members of the Arab League. Each time it has prevailed thanks to the support of  the West, and most notably the United States.

On October 7th, members of the Iranian backed terrorist group, Hamas, secretly attacked a group of mostly civilian men, women, and children who had turned out for a concert and family oriented events. The attack was a brutal as it was sudden with over 1700 Israelis viciously murdered. Some were shot in cold blood, while others were raped before being burned alive. Others were taken captive. Beaten and repeatedly rape, they were to be used as bargaining chips to avoid repercussions against Hamas leadership. 

Since then, the Israelis have been relentless in the retaliation, which many have called "justifiable". However, while the Israelis have been winning in ruble of Gaza, they've been losing the public relations war. Hamas and their supporters have been able to portray Israel as the aggressor and guilty of genocide against Palestinian people while Hamas characteristically uses them as human shields and routinely attacking or hijacking relief trucks carrying medicine, food, and fresh water, which they often sell on the black market.  

Israel has seen a serious loss of support globally, and most notably in Europe and among NATO, which has historically backed the Israelis. The situation is so serious that Turkey has subtlety threatening to intervene to prevent the ongoing "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza. If that were to happen, how would it affect NATO? Besides having the second most powerful military in NATO behind the U.S., it also serves as a major bulwark, preventing hundreds of thousands of "migrants" from invading. Such a influx could collapse the European economy, which is already teetering on failure. 

Of late, Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hasn't been shy about threats to throw open its doors to these migrants should NATO or the EU impose any sanctions for its actions against Israel, the Kurds, or Syria. A threat by the way which has all the earmarks of political and economic blackmail. How would a greatly weakened U.S. military and NATO react should Turkey decide to intervene?

Syria, Iran and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Deadly Game of  Political Chess 

Iran, which is behind Hamas as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorists groups, has made it crystal clear that it will "wipe Israel off the map" at the first opportunity even if it meant the complete destruction of Iran and all its people. It's no secret that Iran has aggressively been working on a nuclear bomb with the intent of hitting Israel even if it meant that Israel responded in kind. The major stumbling block for Iran has been a delivery platform and defeating Israel's famed "Iron Dome". The fall of Syria may have helped alleviate one portion of that problem.  

It's no secret that U.S. foreign policy has been the control of Middle Eastern oil and gas and transportation lanes as well as destabilizing Russian regional interests and removing Iran as a regional and possible global threat (we've never gotten over the humiliating 1979 "hostage crisis"). Our principal allies, like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, are very nervous about the spread of Iran's radical religious extremism and its threats to destabilize or even topple their governments. 

As a result, Neocons in the U.S. State Department, in conjunction with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, carefully laid out plans to reshape the Middle East in their image several years ago by first going after Afghanistan, then Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and lastly, the cherry on top---Iran (of course, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are all in for any war or conflict. Besides, it's good for business).

Unfortunately, we didn't do so well in Iraq. Not because of any military defeat, but for not properly planning for a post-war government.  In Afghanistan, we lost because our arrogance and failure to learn from history. Everyone from King Cyrus the Great and Alexander to the British Empire and the USSR has failed to conquer Afghanistan. The result, after 20 years of fighting, was a stronger and better armed Taliban, an intact Al Qaeda, and a PR disaster for the Biden Administration.

 Meanwhile, the U.S. has been trying to overthrow the Assad government since 1971 when Hafez al-Assad became president.  His son, President Bashar al-Assad has never been a friend of terrorists and opposed Iran's radical form of Islam. Syria has been the nemesis of our NATO ally, Turkey and our trading partner, Saudi Arabia, yet it was also a buffer to Iranian expansion. 

Most importantly, is that Syria has been a close ally of Russia going back to the early 1950's. The fall of Bashar al-Assad was been on the State Department's and CIA's. "things to do" list for a very long time. During the Syrian civil war, U.S. intelligence agencies have been aiding the Al Qaeda affiliated militia, HTS, and other paramilitary groups in destabilizing Assad's government as part of the efforts. 

Now with Assad out of the way, a number of different militias are poised to battle for the control of Syria, or at least large swaths of it, including ISIS, which stands to benefit greatly from the instability. The leader of the U.S. backed HTS, a spin off of Al Qaeda, Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani, is now downplaying his anti-Western terrorist past in the hope that U.S. aid will buy him a place at the table when it comes time to divide Syria up (either by pen or bullet).  

Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, Iranian backed militias are now securely in Syria (most notably ISIS). This will allow Iran to extend its influence further, not to mention its missile launchers. ISIS has already launched several rocket and missiles at targets inside Israel. While the fall of Assad benefits U.S. foreign policy interest, at least for the moment, it puts Israel at greater risk. Israel has moved troops pass the Golan Heights buffer zone into Syria while Turkey has extended its reach deeper into northern Syrian territory, pushing the embattled Kurds further into the surrounding hills. Of course, all this sets the stage for even more "migrants" to invade Europe via Lebanon and bypassing Turkey. 2025 should prove very interesting as this situation continues to play out. 

Russia and Ukraine: A Game of Nuclear Chicken

Another event to keep a close eye on is the situation between Ukraine and Russia. The war, which began in February 2014, was thought by most political and military observers, to be over in a matter of months at best, given the easy in which Russia forces seized control of the Crimea. Yet, ten years later and both sides are still slugging it out. For Ukraine, its ability to holdout is due to being heavily supported by the U.S. and NATO members, who are also augmenting American aid with equipment and material of their own.  

Since February 2024, the U.S. has provide Kyiv with some $61.4 billion dollars in military aid according to the U.S. State Department. When other forms of aid are added in, including money to prop up Zelensky's government, American taxpayers have ponied up $106 billion dollars without so much as having say about it. Many analysts believe the goal is to bleed Russia dry militarily, thus removing or at least decreasing its super power status military, and maybe with some luck, even destabilize Putin's government. 

Some former Warsaw pact nations like Poland have become increasingly belligerent toward Russia and are threatening more direct assistance to Ukraine (Poland and Russia have a long and antagonistic history with each other). Putin has urged the Poles and others to seriously rethink their positions and tone down their rhetoric. There has also been hints by the Russians that any such intervention could result in a military response up to and including the use of nukes. 

In a bit of a surprise, North Korea has begun sending troops to support the Russians in exchange for desperately needed economic aid (it must be serious, Kim Jong-Un looks like he's losing some weight). It should be noted that the North Korean soldiers have proven to be mediocre at best. Nevertheless, even as cannon fodder, you can't fault their commitment. Many have chosen suicide to being captured.  

It's unlikely that Putin will allow this drain on his military or economy to continue much longer, That doesn't mean Putin may throw in the towel. Far from it. Putin may go all in, including the possible use of limited tactical nukes in key areas. If so, what then? Will the U.S. and NATO react in-kind or with a all out ground invasion of their own? Sanctions against Russia have proven to be of little use, especially given the rapid growth of BRICs. Since China, a Russia ally and our largest trading partner, is a member of BRICS, sanctions against the U.S. and the EU would have a more profound impact.

The Pentagon has already stated that, following the debacle in Afghanistan, the U.S. military was unable to conduct an effective war on multiple fronts, and with the situation in the Middle East spinning out of control, the rise of the Chinese military and its economic clout, that doesn't leave many options. If we get occupied in the Middle East, that could open door for a Chinese takeover of Taiwan or a North Korean invasion of the South for instance. 

Incoming President, Donald Trump claims to have a good working relationship with Putin, which could result in a ceasefire until a compromise is reached (NATO membership for Ukraine will likely remain off the table). Trump has made similar claims about Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and North Korean President, Kim Jong-Un, but is that just ego talking or can he pull it off? 2025 will likely reveal the reality behind the rhetoric.

 Artificial Intelligence and Humanity: Will the Creation Replace its Creator? 

Another huge development in 2024 is the "sudden" rise of artificial intelligence. Many tech heads hail "AI" as the greatest thing since the invention of the abacus. Others see it as the creation of the golem. What was once found only in the pages of Azimov, Herbert, Clarke, and Le Guin, we now have machines capable of analyzing and manipulating genetic conditions, altering manufacturing, serving as our surrogate on far away planets or deep in the ocean. They can manage not just our businesses, but our lives. In many ways I'm remined of movies like "Total Recall", "Blade Runner", and "I, Robot".

We have technology that can monitor and regulate, if needed, practically everything from diabetes, the heart, and kidney functions. We can now grow not just new skin, but organs! Individuals previously unable to walk, can do so now.  Technology can help us overcome a wide myriad of diseases and disorders. Some have proposed linking humans with technology, thus creating real life "Borg".  There are those already proposing that we turn over governments (especially the judicial system) to AI since it presumably could manage society better than we can.  

A few have experimented with linking the human brain with the internet in order to provide near unlimited knowledge. We can strap on exoskeletons which gives us 10x times the strength of the average human.  A growing number of AI developers are promoting the addition of chips into the human body to monitor things like blood pressure or sugar levels, but these chips could also contain our personal information; everything from our employment and medical history to our financial information and credit score. Yes, it could potentially cut down on identity theft, but is it really a good thing for us? 

Banks and other financial institutions are pushing hard to do away with cash. As it is, practically everything can be done electronically, from work to shopping to doctor appointments to banking and paying bills. In fact, businesses are increasingly urging automatically deducted payments. Think about it. You can run your home electronically. You can work from home, get paid automatically directly to your bank account and pay your bills automatically. You can buy your groceries and shop online, and even have them automatically delivered to your door. Plus, while personal information was once private, now everything is stored in the "cloud" and practically any financial institution---or government agency---can gain access to it.

Technology can provide you with all the "adventure" you'd want with highly realistic programs taking you everywhere and allowing you to interact! You'll be able to sense heat, cold, smell, or taste. Games, music, or books, they can already be downloaded to your computer, iPad, or Smartphone. Thanks to AI, and with the level of existing technology, the need for human contact is all but passe'.

Today, the United States has become a virtual surveillance state. Privacy is nowadays a rare commodity and talk about "escaping from the grid" is nearly impossible. You are already watched, monitored, and analyzed nearly everywhere you go. A feature like a chip would simply be one more way to track you. 

However, while chips could be used track us, they could be used to find  children prone to getting loss or adults with diseases like Alzheimer's of mental disabilities who tend to wonder off, especially those in need of special medication. It could be used to monitor former felons on parole. No more "ankle bracelets". Thanks to retina scans, facial and voice recognition software, and the ubiquitous security cameras,  you can be found no matter where you are.  Even drones can be used to find you. Heck, you car even has a tracking device! 

We're developing robots which are nearly indistinguishable from humans in appearance and mannerisms. We have video games which are so accurate they could pass for the real thing.  There are even operational protypes of sexbots! Our military is heavily dependent of AI or related technology to our fight wars in order to minimize human loss and injuries on the battlefield. Yet, without the experiencing the horrors of war, where are the incentives to prevent them?

In the United States and in much of the world, people have become essentially "chained" to their Smartphones. Businesses, like doctor offices or hospitals, expect to be able to text or leave a message for you on your phone. In some countries, such as China, its mandatory that they carry their Smartphones with them at all times. We are increasingly turning over our lives to technology to the point where the line between "master" and "servant" has become almost so blurred as to nearly indistinguishable between the two.

Scientists predict that human level Artificial Intelligence will reach "singularity" or self awareness sometime around 2040. It will exceed human level intelligence within ten years after that and continue to grow exponentially.  Within 20 years following singularity we will have as much in common with AI as we do now with a worm. The question is then what? Will AI seek to serve us or enslave us (for our  safety of course), but  later, seeing us as hopelessly inferior and unwilling or able to change, will it simply replace us? It wouldn't be hard. Will the creator be replaced by its creation? The growth of  AI will be an important issue to watch closely in 2025.

The MAGA Revolution: The Election of Donald Trump

I thought about entitling this section "The Messiahship of 'The Donald' ", but I thought that might be taking it a bit too far. Nevertheless, there's no question that some diehard "Trumpeters" out there  who wouldn't object.  For over ten years, Donald Trump had endured nearly every from of attack the Status Quo could throw at him. They've attacked his character, his businesses, members of his family, and even his friends. They've publicly maligned him at every turn. 

They've tried to break him financially with countless bogus lawsuits, and all without success. Finally, they've managed to create a public atmosphere so poisonous that there have been attempts on life. Never, in the history of our country, has there been a person as loathed by the ruling class as Donald Trump. But who can really blame them? After all, Trump has not only promised publicly to rid the country of the controlling oligarchs, he's promised to restore the Republic and end the neo-fascist corporatocracy. In fact, in his previous term, he tried to back up his words with action. 

However, Trump found out that "draining the swamp" was a lot harder than it first appeared. Our Republic had previously undergone a quiet coup, having been taken over by Wall Street in a approach known as "gradualism". It was slow, happening piecemeal, but it was no less insidious as any other putsch.  It was also through in every detail. It included both political parties, every government agencies and departments, NGOs, and especially the media. 

Nothing was left to chance. What could not be controlled, was made impotent. Those who challenged it was ignored, ridiculed, humiliated, and if necessary, destroyed. What made it worse was the fact that it has been going on for decades. So much so that the corruption has become institutionalized. 

The corruption was given veneer of civility and the weight of law. Wars and conflicts were fought for noble sounding goals just when in truth they were waged for profit. Treaties were nothing more than business contracts designed to benefit the few. Government no longer represented the people. It serves the interests of the controlling elite to the degree where they line separating them has blurred beyond recognition. 

Many consider Trump to be a ego-driven blowhard. Others consider him pompous and volatile, while some even believe him to be dangerous. There is no question that Trump has, at least, some of these qualities, and quiet likely much more than some would consider disagreeable. However, Trump is not part of the Status Quo which we've been made so comfortable with. We've been made afraid of freedom to the point where comfortable servitude is preferable to independence.  

In many ways Donald trump reminds be of Julius Caesar. Caesar was a successful general while Trump is a successful businessman. Both appeared at the end of their respective Republics. Like Caesar, Trump is a political outsider. Caesar sought to restore the Republic, which had become hopelessly corrupt and ineffectually. The Roman Senate promised much but delivered little except bread and distraction in order to buy off its citizens.  

Any real attempts at reform were brutally crushed such as with Tiberius Gracchus and his attempt at land reform around 133 BC as was his brother, Gaius's efforts at agarin reform in 123 BC., and, of course, the Three Servile Wars, made famous by Spartacus in the third war, to end servitude in its many forms. Like the U.S., Rome faced a massive influx of migrants which threatened the stability of the Republic. Efforts to curtail it were half hearted at best. But, as those with a basic knowledge of history should know, each of these individuals were killed in order to preserve the Status Quo. 

Caesar was awarded the title of "dictator" in the hopes that he could be appeased with the title and would leave the rotting Republic and its Senators alone. It failed. Caesar, it's claimed, said that in order to save the Republic, he would have to destroy the Republic, meaning that reversing the level of institutionalized corruption to restore the Republic would take a thorough and unpleasant bit of housecleaning. 

We generally choose to call it "draining the swamp", which is something Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to do. In just a few weeks, he will be sworn in and his second term will begin and then we shall see what his intentions truly are. One thing is for sure, the Status Quo will fight him every step of the way.

As we head into our 20th year, we here at Another Opinion would like to thank each of you, our dear readers, for all your support, encouragement, and comments over the past 12 months. We are deeply appreciative. The articles above are but a small glimpse onto the many exciting and tragic events of 2024 and whose ripples we will feel for weeks, months, and even years to come. No doubt this coming year will be no less eventful. We hope you all have a happy, healthy, and safe 2025.  

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

From Syrian jihadist leader to Syrian politician:  How Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani reinvented himself 

Who are the Syrian rebels that have toppled Assad and taken Damascus? 

US sends more troops to the Middle East as violence rises between Israel and Hezbollah

Russia-Ukraine War

U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine

Technological singularity 

The new surveillance state

The Trump agenda: Here's what to expect from his second term

The reform movement of the Gracchi (133 - 122 BC)  

The Fall of Assad and Syria What does it mean for the U.S., Israel and the West?

 The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassment of monumental proportions. It not only left the Taliban back in charge of the government and the people (especially the women) worst off, Al Qaeda was still militarily and politically operational. We left so much military equipment behind, that Afghanistan went from being a country of no military significance to being one of the most powerful countries in the region!    

To add insult to injury, it now appears that Al Qaida will emerge as the controlling power in post Assad Syria. It's worth mentioning, that while we were battling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 20 years, following the cowardly attack on 9/11, the U.S. was arming and supporting Al Qaida's efforts, albeit under the names "Jabhat al-Nusra Front" and "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham'  (aka"HTS" ) in Syria to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Of course, ISIS/ISIL is back. They've already reoccupied the Syrian city of Homs and look to further expand. To give you an idea as to their intentions, all one needs to do is look at their name--- the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. On September 24, 2014, the Obama Administration officially announced they would be more "hands on" in Syria in order to oust ISIS.  

At about the same time, the CIA began using Syria as one of its base of operations, starting from the mid-1990s and extending well into the 2000's, for its "extraordinary renditions" (aka "unofficial kidnappings") of so-called "ghost detainees" (ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters, cleric, and supporters) for the purpose of extreme interrogation methods.

In 2008, the CIA formed the "Damascus Community School" to lure anti-Assad groups, officials, and civilians (such as teachers and professors) away from the pro-Soviet orbit. They also started funded and training various paramilitary units to oppose Assad, as well as pro-Iranian terrorist organizations. It should be mentioned that the CIA has been active in Syria since 1949 when it helped plan the March Coup of 1949. Syria was the CIA's first "test case" for overthrowing governments not seen as favorable to U.S. national interests.

Using the code name "Operation Inherent Resolve" (my how they do love their secret code names), the U.S. vowed to fight ISIS through the Syrian Free Army (aka "Revolutionary Commando Army" or "RCA") and the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Front, led by the Kurdish "Popular Protection Units", which are regarded as a terrorist organization by Qatar and Turkey (one nation's terrorists is another nation's liberators). Other groups involved in the fighting include Syrian National Army and the Turkish Armed Forces.

Now, why would we underwrite groups to overthrow the government of President Bashar Assad? The answer is really simply. Syria has been Russia's regional ally for decades. Syria is to Russia what Israel is to the United States. Of course, the U.S. made the usual allegations about the people fighting for their democracy and so forth, the truth was to simply remove the pro-Russian Assad Government, secure access to Syrian oil and gas, and further isolate Iran.

Iran is the center piece in this regional game of chess. The neocons goal all along has been to take control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and destabilize Syria.  Then, with our Arab allies, isolate and ultimately strangle the Iranian government. Well, Iraq is free of Saddam but it's far from stable. However, like the Russians before us,  we were handed our eviction notice by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while Iran remains still standing.  

In fact, Iran is hard at work developing a nuclear bomb and delivery system to "wipe Israel off the map, even at the cost of Iran being vaporized.  In addition, the Iranians have helped to underwrite and arm terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Boko Harem in Africa, and terrorist organizations in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere. 

The only glimmer about the Assad Government's fall is that Russia is without its primary regional ally. The problem is that Al Qaeda, which has already launched rockets at Israel while fighting the Syrian military, will now be that much closer to Israel and will have another shot at a Islamic State.

Israel has used the chaos in the aftermath of President Bashar Assad's departure, to expand its presence from the 1973 UN imposed buffer zone with Syria by redeploying its troops from the top of the Golan Heights to new positions just a few miles on the other side of the Golan mountains, thus pushing Al Qaeda's Iranian supplied missiles a little further back. 

Not unexpectedly, the rest of the Arab world, including some of its nominal "friends" like Jordan and Egypt, to object, claiming that Israel is attempting to permanently occupy Syrian territory.  Of course, it didn't help that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said precisely that was Israel's intent. 

Although Russia has been engaged in a protracted war with Ukraine, designed to keep it bogged down, deplete its military and economy, and (hopefully) weaken Putin's hold on the government, Russia did make a attempt to aid their old comrade, Assad, despite a chorus from the West (led by the U.S. State Department) alleging "interference". Why is it that the U.S. and West can aid allies but nobody else can?

While Assad wasn't necessarily a good guy, at least as far as U.S. interests were concerned, he did provide a stabilizing presence. Much like Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq (even after having his wings clipped following "Operation Desert Storm",  Saddam provided Iraq and the region with political and military stability while keeping the religious extremists in check albeit under his iron fist. Hussein's removal and U.S. failure to have a post-Saddam plan in place, ultimately resulted in a backlash against U.S. occupation and its puppet government, the suppression of the majority Shiite, and radical Islam. 

For those unfamiliar with the political situation in Iraq and why a majority religious group would be held in check, it's because Saddam Hussein was part of the Sunni minority. Saddam ensured that Sunni tribal chieftains and members of his family (including uncles and cousins) were given positions of power while key members of the government and military were also Sunnis.  

The suppressed Shiites were often brutally treated (as were the Kurdish and Christian populations). It's worth mentioning that Saddam had only one Christian as part of his secular administration, Tariq Aziz, who was Deputy prime Minister. Aziz was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church, a sect of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Kurds and Yazidis had no one in Saddam's government.

Like Hussein, Assad managed to keep religious fanatics  at bay and limit Iran's influence (he also throttled Turkey's expansionist ambitions. However, like the Turks, he was no friend of Kurds and only tolerated the Yazidi as well as the Christians).  Now, that's all changed thanks in large part to neo-con arrogance and a shortsighted U.S. foreign policy. So, what happens next?

As with most events of this sort, there will likely be a prolonged and bloody battle for final control of the country. Syria will, no doubt, end up divided with two dominant players jockeying for position behind the scenes.  The first will of course be the U.S. and its proxy, Israel. The other will be Iran and its puppet terrorists organizations, and behind it Russia and China. The trouble, I think, is that the neo-cons and Iranians are playing two very different and dangerous games.

The U.S. is, as always, thinking in terms of regime change. Its objective is the ultimate control of Iran's ample oil and gas production, and control of the region. China is playing a similar game by buying up rights to resources all over the world. It knows that whoever controls key resources such as fresh water, farmland, and strategic minerals needed for technology, wins. We are banking that the control of oil and gas will ultimately trump China's objectives.

Iran, however, is less interested in who among the non-believers control what. It's outlook is strictly religious. It sees as its sole objective to restore or impose a strict global Islamic Caliphate, to aid in the coming of the 12th Imam (a messiah or prophet of sorts) and the destruction of Israel at any cost, even that of its own survival.

The thing about religious zealotry is that you can only bargain with it in the short term, You can never compromise with it over the long term. Why? Because from its perspective, it is God's sole arbiter on Earth. How can God be negotiated with or bought off? There is only submit or perish.

President Assad's departure will create a void more severe than did Saddam Hussein's by creating a similar strategy as to the neocon's, but in reverse. It's mortal enemy, Iraq, is no longer a threat. The Shiites are now in charge, which is good for Iran. After 20 years of war, Afghanistan remains. The Taliban is still in charge. The "Great Satan"---the United States---has been defeated in their eyes, and our unorganized departure has left them stronger than they were in the beginning.

 Despite the decimation of its leadership, Al Qaida remains , and now it's on the verge of controlling a large swath of Syria. ISIS/ISIL too presents a serious threat.  Iran's proxies are closer to Israel than ever, and therefore Iran's missiles won't require the development and deployment of a long range delivery system. In fact, Al Qaida has already shown that it can easily hit Israel's Galilee area from their positions in northern Syria.

Israel's occupation of the far side of the Golan Heights, which has been demilitarized since the Syrian defeat in the 1973 Yom Kipper War, is understandable from a military security perspective. Additionally, there is some bad blood between many of the rebels now in control of Syria. How that will play out remains a serious question with the very real possibility of a renewed civil war.

It provides a badly needed extra buffer zone, but at what cost? The ire of the Arab world, including its tentative friends? Even its historic allies in the West, principally the EU/NATO and even the U.S., have accused the Israelis of deliberate "genocide" of the Gazians  (although Hamas has done far worse to them, and bear in mind, Hamas started this fight with a massacre of 1200+ Israeli civilians on October 7, 2024).

Now, Turkey, a major power of the EU and NATO, has hinted at intervention if Israel doesn't back off. If that happens, what then? The prime directive of NATO is "an attack on one is an attack on all". Could little ole Israel find itself facing NATO and the Arab world, and if so, what about the United States? It's the linchpin of NATO. Meanwhile, the various factions will duke it out for greater control and old scores will be settled as it always tends to happen in a power vacuum.  This is what's at stake now that Assad's government has fallen and U.S. foreign policy continues to blunder forward with outdated objectives.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Who are the rebels in Syria?

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)

5 things to watch as Syria confronts a new future

Islamic State

Syrian Democratic Forces

US intervention in the Syrian civil war

 

Revolutionary Commando Army

CIA activities in Syria