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 His has activated antiquated weapon systems (such as outdated tanks) and even employed North Korean troops in what amounts to a ”fight for food” deal for the bankrupt Communist state.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

What are some of contributing factors for the decline of the United States? An Observation from the Center

 

America, as you know, is no longer a “Republic” although it still likes to pretend it is (much like Rome did under the early Caesars). While purely speculative, as all such predictive analysis are, our decline is not one or two things, but a series of events external and internal, all connected directly or indirectly, which, in the moments of our daily existence, barely warrants our notice. Some appear benign, hardly noticeable, while others glare back at us like Fredrick Nietzsche's abyss. 

First is the assumption that the world wants to be America, or at least like America. America is first and foremost a capitalistic pseudo-democracy. We tend to export “American” ideals and values along with our Levi's, Fords, soybeans and television shows whether they're wanted or not. We try to imprint our society on everyone, especially through consumerism to created a world of "mini me's".  

We create mostly unrealistic dreams, from what to eat, what to wear "what's in and what's passe'" (an artificial construct to sell clothes), TV shows to watch, what we should drive to look sexy or "cool", or what we should look like (especially applies to young girls and women), and even what we should think and what should be considered "important".  Doesn't it make you wonder where we would be without them to think for us?

The corporate media, after all, manufactures the narrative (remember, only five corporations control 96+% of media in all its forms). They tell what's important and not just as they tell us how we're to think or feel. But even that is all about selling "eye time". The higher the viewership the higher the price they can sell a particular commercial slot or print space for.

Another way we sell American ideals is by removing governments we don’t like because they negatively impact our (that is, Wall Street's) financial interest.  This is typically euphemistically referred to as "regime change".  It doesn't matter if the individual or party are chosen by the people, if it interferes with profits, it goes.

During the Cold War with Soviet Russia (1946 - 1991), the U.S. has been involved with the overthrow of roughly 12 governments (euphemistically referred to as "restoring democracy" or "supporting the will of the people"). We've also been directly involved in several hundred political assassinations such as Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnamese President in 1963 or  President Salvadore Allende of Chile in 1973. During the same time span, we've been involved at varying capacities in some 23 proxy wars and 285 armed conflicts. According to one survey, the U.S. was responsible for 81% of the world's armed conflicts from 1945 to 2001

Overwhelmingly, each of these were either directly or indirectly the result of pressure by Wall Street since the individual leader or their government is a threat to their bottom line. In their place, we have typically installed a puppet government, but not just any ole puppet government popular with the people. No siree bob!  These are almost always far Right military juntas headed by such charming individuals like Generals Augusto Pinchot, Gregorio Conrado Alvarez, Alfredo Stroessner, and Jorge Rafael Videla.

Under "Operation Condor", which lasted from 1973 to 1983, we were active in the kidnapping, torturing, murder, or "disappearance" of some 60,000 individuals along with over 400,000 imprisoned. Many of them being Communist, democratic socialists, or simply vocal Left-leaning  activists. Some were union organizers, teachers, pastors, nuns, community leaders, and students.  Naturally, the government likes to say we acted in conjunction with our allies as sort of a soothing balm for our collective conscience.  Still, it kinda brings into question that notion of "leader of the free world" doesn't it?

As an aside, in researching this and similar articles over the decades, I've noted that we've never tried a to elect a non-partisan centrist or someone without strong financial ties to Wall Street. Rarely we elect someone without a military background  Given that we're no longer a democratic or constitutional Republic, having become a Oligarchy led corporatocracy years ago, if we were to have some sort of coup or civil war, what's in store for us? Based on our history, perhaps this is a hint. After all, we have so much experience at it.

Following wars, conflicts, or police actions, the next step is often what's called "nation building" (it should be more properly labeled "national building in our image"). This is where dozens (or more) government contractors engage in the lucrative business of, well, the literal business of physically rebuilding countries we had just bombed back to the Stone Age while the State Department helps restore their government to something acceptable to Wall Street.

Speaking of "nation building", Brown University announced the results on one of its projects concerning U.S. and its "War on Terror", that states over the last 20 years, Washington has spent $8 trillion dollars and came out empty handed with the Taliban still in charge and Al Qaeda still in business despite the loss of some leaders. Why isn't the American Taxpayer furious?

 In addition, over those 20 years, around 900,000 people have been killed. The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that over those same 20 years, the American taxpayer has shelled out $145 billion dollars just to rebuild Afghanistan. I'm sure Al Qaeda and the Taliban are quite grateful, not to mention  thankful for the millions of dollars in state-of-the art military equipment we so graciously abandoned when we skedaddled out of Kabul.  

It's worth noting that despite spending billions on nation building since 1946, not a single country has opted to adopt our form of government. Not a single one. The dozens of countries we've helped rebuild like Humpty Dumpty tend to adopt the inclusive British proportional representative government.

Instead, they tend to choose the British “parliamentary” or proportional system where each party is basically guaranteed a seat, depending on the percentage of the vote they get, meaning everyone has a voice in government. This is in lieu of America's "winner take all" system where the voters on the losing side are unrepresented for the term of that office.

Another serious factor in our decline is our educational system. We’ve dumbed it down so as not to “offend” underachievers. We're ranked in the lower tier among industrial nation. How will we compete globally? We’ve accepted the idea of “equal outcomes over equal opportunities”. Everyone gets “participation trophies” just for showing up. Everyone isn't a “winner”.

We’ve developed the notion that certain individuals or groups are somehow "due" something by society simply because they exist. An extension of that is the mistaken presumption that we're “owed” something--- aka "reparations"--- because your ancestors experienced an injustice or other burden. Well, that may be reprehensible, but try naming one group on this planet who hasn't experienced injustice somewhere in their collective history (which speaks volumes about the state of humanity more than it does anything). 

Every race or ethnic group has at one time or another been the slave or the master. But it's all in the distant past. We can't change or undo what happened. They sacrificed for our future. Take from it the lessons they taught us  and move on. The only person ultimately responsible for your success or failure is you. Not the government, not your fellow citizens, and sure as hell not your ancestors.

America has lost its way. We no longer value life or show respect for others or their things. We covet what others have more than we value our own lives. That's how some people end up dead. We're told we're all victims. So now we've developed a victim mentality where others are responsible for our failures, but why not our successes? We're told it's okay to be "offended" if others won't play along with our "pronoun pity party". Guess what? You can "self-identify" as the "Cheshire Cat" if that's what you want, but that doesn't mean everyone has to play long Alice.

We no longer discuss opposing ideas in a civil manner. We don’t want to be presented with anything outside our “bubble”. We want nothing that would distort our view of the world. To do otherwise triggers a intellectual breakdown, requiring a "safe space" and "comfort blanket".

Our partisan politics is a reflection of that. Its’ developed a enemy-like “us vs. them” mentality where the “us” part doesn’t include the average voter. Rather than producing, society now based on consumption of everything without replacing it. Capitalist democracy requires that we  constantly expand and consume ever faster to survive. It’s appetite is insatiable. It’s fueled by greed for “more” of whatever is there.

When capitalist democracy can no longer expand, it begins to metastasize. It starts to consume itself. As it does so, it increasingly seeks to control and manipulate its environment. The economic class which feeds it is put under increasing pressure to provide more and more while it starves. That’s the stage we're now at by the way.

We've arrived at the point where there are no absolutes. Right from wrong is merely shades of gray. Much is often promised, especially by our so-called “leaders”, but no one actually expects those promises to be kept. We've discovered we can invade the coffers expecting them to always be filled but that's increasing not the case.

Facts are now seen as ambiguous. Truth is now a matter of perspective rather than accepted norms mutually agreed upon by society. They're conveniently assumed to be a lie to be discarded if we disagree with them. Perhaps worse is when no one is held accountable for the lie. Let's take a quick look at the nation and the lie we were loosely modeled on---Rome.

"Rome the Eternal", like countless nations before and after, fell because of an over extended and undersupplied military. It was no longer able to impose Roman values on the unruly barbarian tribes. Even its military became less “Roman” as more and more foreigners filled its ranks, who had no vested interest in the empire due to a decline in Rome's  birthrate.  

Originally, the title (and it was a “title”) of “Roman Citizen” carried great weight.  It was bestowed rarely and often with great fanfare. Eventually, it all but lost its mystique. Foreigner didn't settle in order to become a “Roman Citizen”. They came for the economic opportunities Rome could provide.  Eventually, didn’t they even bother to learn the lingua franca of the empire--- Latin---or follow its laws, traditions and adopt its values.  Sound familiar?

Internally, Rome had always been corrupt, but it was the degree of corruptness which changed. It became a cancer and spread everywhere. Citizens were distracted  with “bread and circuses”, that is, games and monthly bread rations, all paid for by the working class---the Plebeians or "Plebs"--- until it eventually collapsed from over taxation.

Taxes and goods from client states also dried up. They developed their own trade alliances and bypassed the Roman “middlemen”. They even lost their fear of Roman might. Why? Not because it was no longer formable, but because Rome could no longer financially sustain a war. Again, sound familiar?

Eventually, there arose an outsider, Julius Caesar, who pledge that “in order to save the Republic I must destroy the Republic”, which was a true enough observation. The Republic could no longer reform itself out of it situation. The dependent classes lacked the means and will. It couldn’t appease all the special interests groups which controlled it. Rome must be founded again.

However, Caesar failed and paid with his life. What followed was a series of internal civil wars, When they were over, Rome had order. It also had a dictatorship. Can we be that far aways from our own Caesar? That’s a question many Americans are asking themselves. We are now a defacto neo-fascist corporatocracy; a surveillance state with all the tools for a full blown police state already in place. All that’s missing is a crisis—-real or manufactured.

We likely won’t have a military junta (although the military is the only institution which has kept a positive approval rating), but rather someone like a board president or chairman. And why not? After all, Wall Street runs the show. Why shouldn’t they step center stage and claim the crown?

 

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

United States involvement in regimechange in Latin America

Operation Condor

Parliamentary system

US initiated 81% of global armedconflicts from 1945 to 2001   

Cold War Coups and Proxy Wars

Costs of the 20-year war onterror: $8 trillion dollars and 900,000 deaths

DoD: What We Need To Learn:Lessons From Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction

  

2024: Does Anyone Want To Be President?

Assuming Trump isn't the GOP nominee for some reason, who is there for the Republicans? Nikki Haley? She's lost six races in a row, including her home state of South Carolina. She even lost to "None of These Candidates" in the Nevada Republican primary, and Trump isn't actually out campaigning.

How can anyone take her seriously? Nevertheless, Haley's is the only active candidate on the Republican side. It looks as if the entire Republican Party has decided to capitulate the 2024 presidential election, which has never happened before.

So, what if Trump is removed from the ballot, has the GOP blown the next four year?  After all, there are some 91 felonies charges pending against "The Donald" and they need only one to stick. to disqualify him from office. I can't imagine this is the Republican Party's grand strategy, and it isn't any better on the Democratic Party's side.

The Democratic power brokers see the same polls we do (and few that we don't). They know Biden has no realistic shot at winning in a general election. His approval rating is just 38%, but then it's never been strong. So, who's there to step in when---not "if"---Biden is removed from office for being mentally unfit? Kamala Harris? Hardly.

Ms. Harris's only accomplishment to date is not having accomplished anything with the possible exception of somehow managing to maintain the lowest approval rating of any VP of any party at any time.! Her current disapproval rating is 52.8%. It's almost as if the Democratic Party is intentionally throwing the 2024 presidential election to Trump which is impossible to imagine.

Then we have to look at the consequences of what potentially could happen if either of these "for display purposes only" candidates wins by default. As we saw in 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, and thus denied her of the coronation she and her supporters felt entitled to, there were demonstrations throughout the U.S., Europe,  Latin America, and Middle East (especially among those who had donated millions to her foundation, expecting special excess). They blamed everybody (including Putin and Xi Jinping) for the defeat except for the candidate herself.

There were violent protests seemingly everywhere to the tune of $57.4 million dollars in damages.  If Trump should win in November, is there any reason why we shouldn't expect more of the same? Antifa, LGBQT groups, and BLM will be back in business and better financed than ever before.

Accusations of racism will skyrocket while claims of reverse racism could reach epidemic levels, creating an climate of unmatched racial and gender tension in this country. Censorship, especially on campus as well as on social media will seem to be everywhere. Given the depth of our national divide, can we endure even more?

Meanwhile,  President Trump will find himself playing hell at getting anything accomplished. Even Republican members will fight him at nearly every turn, sending bill after bill down in defeat. I suppose that if there's a "silver lining" to be found here, is that the Republicans and Democrats may finally have an issue to bring them together, namely shutting Trump down for the next four years.

Ultimately, pro-Trump forces ---which comprises about 64% of all conservatives---will grow so frustrated at seeing their agenda being blocked at every turn, and with continued social chaos and crime  reaching record levels, they may take to the streets to fight for "traditional American values". In the end, America may find itself staring into the abyss with the abyss staring back. 

On the other hand, what if Joe Biden somehow manages to win in November, with thanks to the corporate media and in large part to the years of political character assassination directed against Trump. Let's face it, by November Trump will be physically, mentally, and financially exhausted., and who can blame him?

To date, he's already spent over $76 million dollars  over the last two years to 60 law firms on his defense. He's raised just over $27 million for his campaign, but much of that is having to be diverted to his defense. Never before has one individual endured as much as Trump has in his quest to be president again. He might be a billionaire, but even billionaires have finite resources.

So, what if Biden manages to win? Perhaps the most obvious threat facing the U.S. in the event of a Biden victory is on the global front. A Biden win could be the green light China has been waiting for to reclaim Taiwan, not to mention enforcing its claim over fishing and territorial water disputes with Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, India, Japan, and the Philippines.

Given a weakened American military, which is currently at a ten year low in terms of recruiting having adequate supplies and proper updates of equipment, combined with a perceived weak president, could be the ideal situation for Beijing. Meanwhile, this may be the impetus which forces  these countries to unite economically and militarily in lieu of their dependence on U.S. forces.  

A Biden win in November could present Iran with an opportunity for approving a full court press on Israel through Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the other terrorist cockroaches organizations.  Maybe to North Korea's tinpot dictator, Kim, will use the global situation to press Seoul's defenses. I put nothing pass any of these states or their leaders.

Finally, we need to look at the big bear in the room---Russia. Putin could decide to finally end the drain on Russia's economy vis-à-vis Ukraine while daring NATO to threaten its strategic border again. I think Putin has been more than patient with NATO's saber rattling. He has also demonstrated remarkable restraint in avoiding to be drawn into a new Cold War, which is something the neocons in the West have been desperate to revive.

Nevertheless, Putin may find it necessary to temporarily circle the wagons behind "Brics" and continue to build an alternative to the global petro-dollar based economy."Brics" currently includes some strong and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil, and several of the Gulf States, as well as Russia.  Whether I'm right or not (and I hope I'm not), there won't be many golden opportunities like a second Biden term.

Meanwhile, domestically the Republicans will continue to the dominate party in Congress, though in reality the only clique of  true importance is that of Wall Street and its K Street knights errant with their bags of money and favors. Without them there is no politics in this country. So, we can expect to ended up with more of the same gridlock, petty sniping, and distractions as before.

Of course, the only joker unaccounted for are the Trump supporters, of which there a millions. If Trump losses and Biden manages a second term, there will likely be a upheaval to make January 6th look like a five year old's birthday party. There will naturally be claims of fraud, election sabotage, outside interference, and every other form of tomfoolery you can envision. You can expect mass protests and demonstrations from coast to coast. As an aside, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are currently some 200 militias operating in the US. as of 2015.

Sure, the Feds will do everything in their power---legal and otherwise---to downplay and redirect the anger coming from the Far Right over a Biden victory. How successful they'll be is hard to say. Federal agencies such as the FBI , NSA, Homeland Security think they're clever in their efforts to infiltrate, bug, and monitor these groups, but it's just as likely they'll be the ones to have the infestation especially given that most of these organizations on the Far Right are run by former members of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities. In short, nothing is as it seems.

Should the Left make the mistake of trying to confront these groups of the Right, it could get seriously ugly very fast. Let's hope that doesn't happen. Despite having had largely card blanche to do as it pleased in the past, the Left really has no idea of the hurt the Right can bring.

Of course, the media will do its best to villainize Trump and his  supporters as it has in the past while covering up the Left's "peaceful" demonstrations as we watched stores being looted and torched, people brutally attacked (mainly white, Hispanics, Asians, and seniors), and private property vandalized. I suspect the corporate media will get a rude awakening as to just how far their credibility has fallen.

I think there will be another factor to consider, and that's the American People themselves. Americans are overwhelmingly politically Independent. They are sick and tired of the two corporate controlled parties.  We all know the political, judicial, and economic systems don't work, at least for us. For the ruling elites, it works just fine. It's how they designed them to work. The American People want a deep and fundamental change which isn't going to happen willingly. Power is never surrendered voluntarily.

So, who do we do ivote for if Donald Trump is ineligible for some reason  and we don't want Joe Biden? Do we have any other choices aside from Nikki Haley? Well, we do. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert F. Kennedy, the former senator from New York. Senator Kennedy was murdered in his 1968 bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.

 I remember that at the time (I was about 10 years old), I really liked Senator Kennedy and had high hopes he'd win. We had a mock election with all the candidates represented and I was "Bobby Kennedy". I had to articulate his various positions. before the entire 6th Grade class.  For what it's worth, I (or rather Kennedy) won! America would have been so much better off if he had. Instead, the nomination went to Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota  who lost to Richard Nixon.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running as an independent and while he's more than qualified to be President, the political duopoly has virtually made it impossible for anyone outside to the two corporate parties to get on the ballot. and the media is virtually ignoring him. Nevertheless, Kennedy has been mostly successful and poised to be a serious contender in November. However, like any outsider, he needs a lot of grassroots support.

Regardless of who you vote for or who ultimately wins in November, remember that America is at a dangerous crossroad. Once chosen, there will be no turning back. We'll be committed to whatever comes next.

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Here's how much the Anti-Trump protests cost, at Trump paid turnout rates

Trump Has Devoured the Republican Establishment

The GOP's Establishment is More Populist Than Its Trumpsters

Who likes Donald Trump? Lots of Republicans, but especiallyHispanic voters plus very rural and very conservative people

Trump spent $76 million over late two years on attorneys aslegal troubles mount ahead of election

US Military  'Weak', At Risk of Not Being Able to Defend National Interests: Study

Kennedy24

What's Next for Putin and the People of Ukraine?

What's next for Russian President Vladimir Putin? I guess that all depends on who you ask and where you get your news. There's no doubt that Russian news sources are largely controlled by the Russian government. But then, the Western media are just as guilty of their own propaganda. After all, the same corporations which control 96+% of everything we read. watch, and hear also controls Washington.

With that in mind, Russian news sources report that the Russian military is holding their own, if not actually winning in what's now become a war of attrition. Meanwhile, in the West we're told that the Ukrainians are giving the Russian troops a good old fashioned butt kicking (naturally with Western aid).

Russian tanks and mobile units are being decimated while Russian planes and helicopters are being shot down with impunity. As for the much ballyhooed Black Sea Fleet, it's been rendered impotent. We're even told that the Russian military to running on empty when it comes to keeping their war machine supplied with fuel, replacement parts, ammo, and even food, water, and medicine.

Video footage (often provided through the Ukrainian Government) of captured Russian troops are repleve with stories of being randomly drafted, given little or no training, and simply dropped off at random sites in the Ukraine and to await instructions which never seem to come. Many just wonder into the nearest Ukrainian town or village and simply surrender to the first Ukrainians they see...military or civilian.  In short, they're there to use up Ukrainian ammunition as cannon fodder and live (for the moment) targets.

Meanwhile, there seems to be no shortage of scenes of smoldering or abandoned T-90 tanks, or planes and helicopters being shot down on social media outlets, yet curiously few scenes of the obligatory dead Russian soldiers and pilots which are displayed as proof of victory.

It's hard to believe that the arch nemesis of "all that's holy and scared", at least according to Western governments (most notably the United States) during the 45 years long Cold War is being thumped by a second tier military like Ukraine.  Starting in the 1950's, Americans lived in fear of ruthless Soviet expansion throughout the world likened to a game of dominos.

In school, we were taught to hide under our desks or along the hallway wall in case of a nuclear sneak attack (which hung over us and our parents like a sword of Damocles). Looking back, I guess that was so the survivors knew where to find the little piles of our ashes. We were told to "drop and cover" behind sidewalk curves or drive to the nearest fallout shelter, which were usually located downtown. You know. Right where the bomb would hit in about 20 minutes.

Meanwhile selected government officials were to be secretly evacuated by the military to their own nearby private bomb shelters under the auspices of "continuity of government" and all before the ice in their glasses of scotch melted. 

 We fought countless wars directly and indirectly, overthrew governments, and assassinated duly elected foreign leaders throughout the world to make it "safe for democracy" (sarcasm intended).  Then, we watched with a certain measure of glee as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, only to get bogged down in their own Vietnam (a lesson we repeated and took us 20 long years to learn with the same results), and downright cheered when the USSR imploded and collapsed in 1991.  

So, now what for Putin? Well, if we are to believe the mainstream media, President Putin is stuck between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, his generals are extremely frustrated with the progress (or lack thereof) in the Ukraine while many members of the Duma (Russia's version of Congress), along with large numbers of the populace, are increasingly angry over the quagmire that is Ukraine.

The Russian senior military staff are themselves split between what to do. A minority see their best option as throwing in the towel and withdrawing completely with their tail between their legs as they did in Afghanistan 33 years ago. Others see their best solution as consolidating their tenuous hold on the Donbas provinces and forgoing the rest of Ukraine.

Some of the military and political hardliners are urging the use of some of their 5,977 nukes, specifically the smaller "tactical" warheads of which there are about 2,000. Even some members of the powerful state security apparatus, the FSB (successor to the feared KGB) seem to agree.  

These smaller yield warheads have an explosive output of approximately 15 to 20 kilotons of dynamite, which are close to the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,which killed or outright vaporized a combined 105,000 lives. The resulting fallout caused the deaths of tens of thousands for months and years afterwards, not including the thousands of birth defects which continued to appear decades later.

Most Western observers reject this scenario, saying Putin may be crazy, but he's not stupid. I agree that it's highly unlikely that Putin would use nukes. First, he would be unanimously condemned by the world. There's even the possibility of a coup. Those nations which have remained on the sidelines throughout the conflict would immediately provide Ukraine with humanitarian aid. Some might add military aid as well.  There would be near universal economic and political sanctions imposed on Russia would stagnate it for years if not decades.

Secondly, the nuclear fallout could drift westward, affecting Poland, Hungary, and Romania or spread further west to Germany and Scandinavia. Depending on the targets and wind direction, it's not out of the question that Turkey, not to mention Russian controlled Crimea and the Black Sea with its fishing industry and critical production of oil and gas would be affected.   

If it did drift into Poland and points west, all NATO countries, it could make for a tenuous, but plausible argument for triggering Article 5 of NATO's mutual assist agreement, and thus activate NATO's military. Granted that might be a bit of a stretch (though fallout is certainly possible and even likely), it wouldn't take much given the hotheads in NATO who've been looking for an excuse to get directly into the fight from the outset. 

Any humanitarian relief efforts transported directly into Ukraine would likely be under the protection of NATO. Any provocation by Russia, intended or not, would be all the excuse needed for things to get "hot", thus forcing Russia to pull back to avoid any possible "misunderstandings". To put it another way, everything would be locked and loaded and the safeties would be off. Lastly, it would give NATO all the justification they need in the eyes of the world to fully admit Ukraine into NATO as a full partner. Nukes would be a no win scenario for Putin.

A good argument could be made for Russia to simply withdraw from the Ukraine proper and focus its energies on the contested Donbas region, which is comprised of roughly 40% ethnic Russians. After all, Russia's military has pretty much mucked up most everything in western Ukraine while invigorating Ukrainian resistance.

Russia's badly depleted and demoralized military would have a substantially smaller area to contend with, and they would have the support of a large pro-Russian minority. The Donbas could provide a link with Russian controlled Crimea.

It's worth noting that several Western pundits claim that the Ukrainians are doing such a marvelous job in fighting Russian troops, that after driving them out of the country proper, they should move into the Crimea and retake it. An interesting notion but unlikely. The Crimea has strong links to Russia dating back to the late 1700's. A substantial portion of the population (about 60%) are ethnically Russian, speak Russian, and identify with Russia.

In March 2014, the Crimean Supreme Council held  a referendum for the Crimean people. They were to decide to rejoin Russia or readopt their 1992 Constitution which gave them autonomy. With a turnout of about 83%, some 96% voted to rejoin Russia. Critics of the referendum (mostly Americans) cited no outside observers to verify the election results, and therefore rejected the outcome. I suppose the same argument could be used for our recent elections too don't you think?

Regardless, Russia has been in the Crimea since Czarina Catherine the Great's annexation in 1783. It's home of one of their largest military installations, Sebastopol, and it's the source of vast amounts of oil and gas which has been propelling Russia's economy (perhaps the main reason Kyiv wants it back).

The Donbas (formed from the name of the area---Donets Basin) is comprised of two pro-Russian provinces, the Luhansk and Donetsk. 68.8% and 74.9% respectively speak Russian.  Fighting has been going on there for roughly 8 years, resulting in the deaths of somewhere around 14,000 people. Control of the Donbas would allow Moscow a direct connection to Crimea and the all important Sebastopol.  However, it's more than just having a land connection to Crimea. The Donbas is resource rich, especially in coal.

The hard coal reserves in the Donbas are one of the largest in the world, worth in the neighborhood of $57 billion dollars. It is also rich in methane gas, rock salt, limestone, mercury, and various types of ore. The Donbas had a gross regional product output in 2020 of 7.0 billion Euros and accounts for 6% of Ukraine's GDP.  

Prior to the 2014 invasion, Kyiv had an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell to develop one the key Yuzuvska natural gas field. Due to the war, that was suspended in 2014. Royal Dutch Shell finally withdrew from the agreement in June 2015.

The securing of the Donbas is too important to Putin to permit him to fully withdraw from the Ukraine. It is and perhaps has always been at the heart of the invasion, notwithstanding Putin's repeated refusal to allow a NATO presence in Ukraine. Such a presence would surround Russia's western frontier with NATO missiles, box in its Black Sea Fleet, and potentially restrict its access to vast amounts of oil, gas, and natural resources.

Russia should no more been expected to accept such as a fait accompli than the U.S. would with a Chinese military and economic presence on our Canadian and Mexican borders. His invasion was in many ways as colossal a blunder as Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 or Hitler's in 1941, but from his perspective, it may have been the lesser of two evil. 

At the same time, a complete withdrawal would devastate Putin's credibility at home, especially with its powerful oligarchs, military and FSB, and key members of the Duma. Such a move would likely result in a coup with Putin's removal from office either voluntarily or horizontally. Failure to leave will led to more dissent at home, and again, a possible ouster.

Securing the Donbas offers Putin with a chance for a militarily victory and stability at home before things spiral too far out of hand, but it leaves him with a dangerous enemy in Kyiv who will undoubtedly seek revenge by keeping the Donbas unstable. It also provides Kyiv with the best excuse it could ever have for full NATO membership, and with it, protection of the global corporate elite.

Finally, Russia will remain outside the reach of the Western capitalism and its ruling elite, where perhaps it should be. The sanctions will likely remain for now, as much as punishment for rejecting Western neo-feudal capitalism as for its invasion of Ukraine. Putin will be portrayed as unstable and a tyrant in the West for his disruption of the "Great Reset" of the New World Order. 

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

 

Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation

Battle for Donbas: 3 reasons why Russia is shifting its warmachine to east Ukraine

 

Putin's tactical nuclear weapons could pack the same punch as atomic bombs dropped on Japan

Russian Military Leaders Discussed Use of Nuclear Weapons,U.S. Officials Say

Why Vladimir Putin Would Use Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine

How to respond if Putin goes Nuclear? Here are the economicand political options

 

The Aftermath of Soleimani's Assassination and the Darker Side of U.S. Foreign Policy

On January 3, 2020 a U.S. drone took out one of the world's most ruthless terrorist, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the dreaded Quds Force which is a specialized unit within the elite Revolutionary Guard. General Soleimani wasn't just feared throughout the Middle East. He was equally feared at home in Iran where his Quds Force were responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of ordinary Iranians. Yet, within hours after the announcement of his assassination, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in protest of his death. Why?

You would think that death of someone as vile as Solemani would be reason to celebrate. Granted many of the protests were organized by the Iranian government who typically use paid organizers some are actually members of the Revolutionary Guard, YEGUP or the PAVA (internal security and the secret police respectively). They tend to bribe or threaten people into participating. Nevertheless, some of the protestors were legitimately upset by the assassination of a government official, hated though he may be, by the U.S. military.

Frankly, you can't blame them if you think about it. After all, how would the American People feel if a foreign power decided to bump off U.S. officials simply because they didn't like their policies towards their country? I think most Americans would be demanding scalps! What if they had assassinated a senior U.S. government official like the President or Vice President? As soon as we found out who was responsible, God help them. We'd turn the country into an uninhabitable wasteland.

Well, perhaps that's was the thinking of at least some of protesters following Solemani's death. Of course, more recently the protests are in response to the Iranian military shooting down an Ukrainian passenger plane and then blatantly lying about for days until overwhelmed proof exposed their lies. The Iranian government brought the Iranian People a step closer to war with the U.S. which would have lead to the utter destruction of their country and the deaths of millions, all because of a lie.

Here is something we tend to forget about in this country. We've get lied to as well, especially when it comes to U.S. foreign policy (and I'm not talking just about Benghazi, though it's a more recent example). Hell, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which got us into a war in Vietnam was based on a lie. Let's remember too that in 1953 the U.S., through the CIA, overthrew a popularly elected government in Iran that it didn't like (that is, U.S. "hawks" and certain powerful corporations).

The result was installing Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, who was far from a benevolent monarch. Thousands in Iran "disappeared" while numerous others were tortured or simply murdered. But nevertheless, the Shah supported an open door policy for U.S. military and economic interests. Of course, that wasn't the only time we overthrew a duly elected government. Actually, it's far from it.

In 1952, the U.S. backed Colonel Fulgencio Batista in overthrowing Carlos Prio Socarras, the popular Cuban president. The government which Basista inherited was rather prosperous by Latin America standards with good schools and medical care, a strong economy with a decent infrastructure and a generally open society. However President Prio was protective of Cuban interests from foreign influences, especially the American mafia and certain corporations which wanted control over key Cuban resources, particularly sugar. Enter Colonel Batista and his American backed military coup.

Under Batista, Cuba became a highly repressed society with very limited freedom of expression. Batista cracked down on anyone he viewed as the threat. Corruption was rampant. The infrastructure broke down, and with it the education and healthcare systems, at least for the ordinary Cubans. For the elites, life was good. In fact, it was very good. Batista ruled over Cuba until 1959 when he was ousted by Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro.

At first it was assumed that Castro's demands for major reforms was just the usual political theatrics and the revolution was nothing more than one corrupt politician replacing another and nothing would change. However, Castro was serious when it came to reform. He threw out the mafia and after various corporations balked at improving their treatment and pay of Cuban workers (like providing health benefits, job safety, and time off), he simply kicked them out and nationalized the businesses. It was the same when it came to land reform where Cubans farmers weren't allow to own land but foreign nationals could! It created a sense of being outcasts in their own country.

It's also worth noting that at no time did Castro ever claim to be a Communist at this point. In fact, he repeatedly denied being a Communist and would often state publicly that he want a democratic government reminiscent of President Prio. After pressure by these "sore butt" corporate presidents (and no doubt the mob), it was decided that Castro had to go.

So, in typically fashion he was vilified and economic sanctions were imposed. Then we backed an invasion and attempted coup of U.S. trained and equipped Cuban rebels. However, this time we failed. It was only after the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco in 1961 that Castro announced that from then on he would be a Communist. Who could blame him? After all, Cuba was a tiny little island nation and it needed a powerful friend, which it found in the USSR to our chagrin. Despite the sanctions, Castro remained in power until 2011.

The U.S. had also supported military strongman, General Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay in his coup, ousting Frederico Chavez, in 1954. Stroessner, who was responsible for deaths of thousands, including native Ache Indians who were also often enslaved, largely due to U.S. and European corporations wanting (and gaining) access to the country's forests, mines and grazing lands which the Ache considered sacred and refused to give up. The enslaved Ache were typically worked to death. Thousands more were imprisoned and upwards of 500 political detainees simply "disappeared". In 1974,the UN condemned the Stroessner Regime of slavery and genocide. Nevertheless, he retained power for 35 years until he too was ousted by a coup.

In 1964, the U.S. sponsored a military coup against Brazilian President Goulart out of fear of another Cuban type revolution. As a result, Field Marshall Castelo Branco seized power (with a detachment of U.S. Marines standing by in San Paulo just in case). Branco's regime, which last over 20 years, resulted in the destabilization of the economy amid vast corruption and the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of thousands of Brazilians.

The similar thing happened in South Korea with the U.S. backed coup led by General Park Chung-Hee in 1961. Thousands of either known or suspected pro-Communists or Leftists were arrested, tortured, and executed. Best estimates put the total over 100,000. Of course, anyone who voiced any opposition was subject to the same fate. In 1963 South Vietnam, the U.S. supported the overthrow and assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem through a U.S. approved military coup led by General Duong Van Minh.

It's not that Ngo was the poster boy of a decent guy. He wasn't. It's just that his policies didn't jive with the interests of American "hawks" or the military/industrial complex which saw an opportunity to push back Communist expansion and make a pretty handsome profit to boot. Duong's military junta and subsequent government proved to be much more "cooperative" than his predecessor's.

On September 11, 1973, the popular and democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was brutally overthrown by a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Thousands of "troublemakers", from labor leaders, politicians, educators, activists, and anyone viewed as a potential threat were systematically rounded up and executed. The slightest whisper of discontent could get you arrested and you could "disappear" into one of dozens of secret camps throughout the country. After decades in power, it's believed that at least 50,000 Chileans are known to shared this fate.

In 1976, the U.S. backed another military led coup in Argentina. This time is was to overthrow the widow of President of Juan Peron who was serving as the new president (she was Juan Peron's Vice President). Lieutenant General Jorge Rafael Videla was installed and remained the de facto president until 1981. In 1985, Videla was arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. It's estimated that as many as 30,000 Argentines were tortured and murdered. In addition it was learned that he sanctioned infant and child kidnapping while their mothers were held in prison camps (the children were sold). Videla was found guilty and sentenced to 50 years in prison. He died while still in prison in 2013.

In 1968, while publicly supporting the military coup by General Omar Torrijos in Panama, the U.S. began a long and lucrative relationship with his head of intelligence, General Manuel Noriega. While Torrijos was known to be corrupt, he was also known to be quite cooperative with U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region and a willing partner in the selling of Panamanian resources.

Torrijos first began receiving American support during the Nicaraguan Revolution which resulted in the removal of U.S. backed dictator, President Anastasio Somoza in 1973 (he had been installed in power in 1967). As a result, the U.S. needed a new and reliable partner, which they found in Torrijo. This relationship continued until Torrijos was killed in a plane crash in 1981.

Due to the useful relationship with Noriega, he was Torrijos' logical successor. That partnership lasted until 1989 when it was decided that he was no longer reliable. In addition, Noriega had made the cardinal mistake of acting on his own. He was eventually arrested and sent to the U.S. where he was tried and sent off to prison. Nevertheless, between Somoza, Torrijos and Noriega, tens of thousands were arrested, tortured, murdered, or simply made to vanish...all without a word from the U.S. Government.

These individuals, as horrible as they were, aren't meant to represented all of the euphemistically named "regime changes" that the U.S has engaged in, along with active encouragement of the same Oligarchy which now controls our country. Not by any means. Starting with the end of WWII in 1945 somewhere around 57 countries have experienced U.S. sanctioned "regime change"; some on multiple occasions. No telling how many changes of government or policies were impacted indirectly by the mere hint of a "regime change". To many in the world this is what "spreading democracy" looks like to them. How would we feel if the tables were reversed I wonder?

The U.S. isn't alone in coercing change in another country's politics, but it is by far much more active in doing so than its ideological enemies. It is also worth mentioning that overwhelmingly these changes have been in favor of very ruthless military juntas which violently suppressed those very ideals which we hold in the highest esteem. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly including the right to protest, the right to fair and speedy trial as well as the right of knowing what we're accused of and facing our accuser. The right to bear arms or being free from self incrimination as well as the freedom for "cruel and unusual punishment" which originally meant torture.

No doubt the Iranian People are glad that someone like General Soleimani is dead along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was another blight on the region. Nevertheless the Iranian People remember how the U.S. had previously removed previous government officials they didn't like. Surely they have to wonder whether this assassination was simply an attempt to remove a terrorist or a prelude to an invasion, which the U.S. has been threatening to do since the Hostage Crisis in 1979. Regardless, it should be remembered that we don't have clean hands either.



U.S. involvement in regime change

Mapped: The 7 governments the U.S. has overthrown

How the U.S. Government Has Supported The Deaths Of Hundreds of Thousands

Gulf of Tonkin incident

And Now A Word From Our Sponsors: War and Economics

The great military strategist, Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, once said, "war is a continuation of politics by other means", and what is politics except trying to secure a better outcome for yourself (or who you represent) than the other person. Of course, it's also supposed to be about compromise, where each side gets at least some of what they want. War is ensuring that your side gets all of what it wants when compromise is unpractical or unnecessary. Let's take the Napoleonic Wars for instance.

What was Napoleon Bonaparte actually attempting to do? Was it the simple conquest of Europe for the sake of grabbing up some great (and not so great) real estate? Was it about tweaking the nose of the British? While certainly a bonus, that wasn't his actual intentions. Nope. Napoleon was about trying to establish a united Europe for the sake of economics. It was all about creating a economic and political union. England's beef was that it would be at the cost of the British Empire. No longer would Britain be the dominant economic power in Europe.

It also didn't take long for many of the other monarchies realized that their hopes of economic success would be affected as well, especially with the French spreading this nonsense about "fraternity, equality, liberty" and all that democracy rot. Beside, not only did it threaten the current economic system, it threatened the existing monarchies and, by creating a more secular society, the power of the Catholic Church as well. Obviously that would not do! And so, Napoleon was eventually defeated and sent off to the Isle of St. Helena to (hopefully) quietly fade away, and with him all the ideals of the revolution.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen and in time, the ideals of the revolution with its "Rights of Man", a secular society, increased democracy, and the growth of the business (and middle class) took hold. Absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies and democracies grew, and along with it an industrial revolution. In the colonies across the "pond", a sense of personal and economic freedom had also begun to germinate earlier. Eventually, they--that is, "we"---decided that we would like to govern ourselves thank you very much. We also didn't care much for the tariffs and taxes being imposed. So, we too had our revolution, which was as much about taxation as it was over self-governance which, of course, had everything to do economics!

World War I had everything to do with economics. At least as much as it did about Serbian independence and the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sofia. While their murders were the spark, it was the interlocking economic and political system set up in post-Napoleonic Europe, as well the rising economic threat to the British and French empires by the German Empire as anything.

Its outcome resulted in the infamous Versailles Treaty which pinned the blame for the war on Germany while stripping it economically and militarily. Germany lost vast lands to the west, north, east (which also separated Germany from Prussia) and all of it colonies (the majority of which going to Britain and France). It lost its industrial heart---the Ruhr and Saar---while forcing huge reparations on Germany with no means of paying. In total, gone was 13% of its territory in Europe and one-tenth, or 7 million, of its citizens. The German imperial government was toppled, and its military emasculated. No air force. A 100,000 strong army. The surrender of its surface fleet with severe limits on any new ships (including merchant) and no submarines. Its world famous General Staff was disbanded while any research was strictly curtailed.

Germany's fragile new democratic Republic faced repeated social unrest and revolution. Assassinations were almost commonplace. With the hyperinflation of Depression nearly wiping out the upper, middle, and lower middle classes, the stage was all but set for the Second World War. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. The Austro-Hungarian Empire imploded, and Imperial Russia was overthrown by revolution and its ruling family, the Romanovs, were executed. As an aside, France and Britain benefited from the fall of the Ottomans, and divided up its lands in the Middle East, which, based on economics, arbitrarily created the nation-states we have there now not to mention much of our current problems since no respect was paid to tribal alliances, traditional boundaries, or opposing Islamic sects.

The new political, military, and economic realignment completely changed international relationships. Germany's former key trade partner, Russia, was now a Bolshevik nation opposed to the West. The US, thanks to its involvement late in the war, catapulted to the center of the world stage now that both France and Britain was weaker, despite their economic gains, having nearly bled to death on the battlefields of Europe, and Austria-Hungary was no longer a world power. Everything was different.

World War II was also all about economics, albeit along with other factors such as racism. Germany wanted to become a world power again, which meant reclaiming more than lands lost through the Versailles Treaty. Specifically, it was the conquest of western Russia and the Ukraine for "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" for the German People. Britain and France faced increased troubles in their colonies as the locals demanded more independence and share of their country's economic wealth. Japan too wanted a piece of the action. It was rapidly industrializing, however, it was resource poor.

As a result, it sought to form the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", in order to create something of an All-Asian economic alliance of, by, and for Asians with Japan at its center. At least, that was its justification for its military expansion in the Pacific. Even Italy wanted to recreate a version of the Roman Empire. As for the United States, we had been active in Latin America, not so much for actual conquest of land, but for ensuring US corporations could operate freely there and without any undo interference from the pesky locals.

Fast forward 1956, and the war in Europe and Asia is over. Europe was laid waste and the US "Marshall Plan" (along with the Berlin Airlift) had kept the Europeans out of a new Dark Ages. Japan was rapidly rebuilding its economy, turning former planes, tanks, and ships into cars, radios, and VCRs. The Korean War was a draw, despite a massive loss of life on all sides. Independence movements were blossoming everywhere, including the birth or rebirth of new nations. The Age of Empire was quickly fading, and the new kid on the world stage was the US, but we weren't alone. The USSR and Communist China were there too, and each sought to expand their ideological influence, and that meant both arms and money. The Cold War is on. Conflicts, pseudo-wars, and proxy wars spread throughout the world. We now had the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and the Common Market which was to morph into the European Union or EU (ironically, Napoleon's old idea anew). The world also had a defacto single global currency---the US Dollar. However, this wasn't a dollar backed by gold. It was tied to oil and on the "faith and confidence" of the US Government and the strength of the American economy. The one world currency was the Petro-Dollar.

By 1991, the ideology of Marx/Lenin/Mao couldn't compete with the ideology of the "Benjamin's", that is, American led capitalism. The Warsaw Pact broke up and the USSR left with a whimper. In short, instead of outfighting them, we simply outspent them. Sure, China survived, but even it too adopted a limited form of capitalism. Communist Eastern Europe has adopted the economic system of its once hated enemy, and is doing quite well thank you very much. Europe itself is much more integrated than ever and well on its way to a "United States of Europe".

Now, along came Osama Bin Laden. The "chic sheik" of a wealthy Saudi family in the construction business turned terrorist. Of course, before that, he was "our" freedom fighter opposing the Soviets who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his fellow zealots, al Qaeda, had declared war not just on the Soviets, but apparently the US and the West, except no one bothered to notice, and so they embarked on a campaign of ever bolder attacks on US interests in the Middle East; embassies, ships, military barracks, discos, and so forth. Finally came 9/11, and they got our undivided attention and anger.

The prime reason for the attack was revenge for the US and other Western influence in the Middle East, but especially our control over Middle Eastern oil. After all, if it wasn't for the oil and gas, not only would we have little to no interest, but the British and French wouldn't have bothered to interfere the region's politics following the fall of the Ottomans post World War I. Nevertheless, we "interfered" now, and in a big way. Before long, the Taliban in Afghanistan, which had sheltered Bin Laden, was gone and "Arab Dillinger" was on the run.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, an ally in the region, decided to invade neighboring Kuwait. Hussein was a known sadist who had previously attacked the Iranians and the Kurds. He even used chemical weapons. Sure, he was a tyrant, but he was our tyrant. This time he overstepped and his actions affected oil and gas prices worldwide. Soon we were rallying public support and building a coalition to liberate Exxon and BP... err...I mean the Kuwaiti People. He was soon defeated, but left in power and would hopefully resume his preapproved place as a deterrent to the Iranians, and so he did for awhile. He also resumed his attacks on the Kurds for good measure. But, soon he was back to coveting his neighbors oil fields, which I'm sure is a prohibitive commandment somewhere.

With that, his removal started with "shock and awe" and ended with the dull thud of a hangman's noose. At that point, America decided to take a direct hand at running Iraq, albeit with a cast of puppets which would make Jeff Dunham proud. Of course, the having proved to be more difficult than the wanting, and without Saddam's iron glove, the genie of religious fanaticism was released in the form of ISIS/ISIL, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and dozens more. It wasn't long before most of al Qaeda's leadership and much of its followers had been eliminated, along with its founder, Bin Laden. In the interim, civil war had broken out in Syria, and we were doing more than rooting for the anti-Assad "freedom fighters" (in Iraq and elsewhere, they were terrorists. In Syria, they were freedom fighters). The reason is partly Syria's oil and gas; partly because they're Russia's key regional ally; and partly because it would make for a great staging area to launch an attack against Iran, which has been a thorn in our side since 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah and the US Hostage Crisis.

Despite numerous claims, albeit false, of "chemical attacks" by Assad's forces (they were actually carried out by our pseudo-allies, ISIL, in Syria, public support just wasn't there no matter how much the media spun the story. So, now the war is all but over and Assad is still in power. Iran continues to make threats against "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" (that's us and Israel). Iraq is stable...more or less...though US troops remain despite promises of coming home.

Europe is under invasion from "migrants" from the Middle East and Africa, which has done more than destabilize an economic and social system which has worked well since the end of World War II. It is on track to replace the native populations within the next couple of decades. Gone will be European culture, its social norms, values and traditions, and even its Judeo-Christian based religions.

Europe's politicians have more than proven themselves to be spineless cowards and traitors to European history and culture. They have had the audacity to try and make criminals out of the victims---the European People themselves. Nevertheless, those who wield the real power; the world's ruling Oligarchs couldn't care less as long as the wealth flows. Their interest is in control. Nothing else matters.

In America, we too are under invasions from economic migrants from Latin America. Our ruling Oligarchy could equally care less. To them it means more competition for jobs, which translates to lower salaries and fewer benefits. It's also an opportunity to attack traditional US ideals such as free speech, the 2nd Amendment, traditional family values, secure borders and the very notion of national sovereignty.

Of course, this makes perfect sense. They think and operate in a world made up of economic markets and trade zones. Borders and nations mean nothing to them. They're outdated notions from a bygone era. Their goal is control and compliance. If it means creating short term chaos in order to obtain long term economic stability in order to generate maximum profits, then so be it.

Besides, war is useful. Even the threat of war is profitable, especially if it forces open new markets, accesses new resources, or ensures compliance by governments. If bribery, threats and sanctions don't work and war becomes necessary, the public can easily be convinced of its patriotic duty. Meanwhile, the selling of weapons is a multi-billion dollar business. It artificially stimulates the economy, reduces "excess" population and thus lowers unemployment, and it allows for incursions into freedoms not otherwise tolerated, such a personal privacy. Given enough time, those incursions seem completely normal and acceptable.

Meanwhile, the population is entertained with distractions; distractions about their debt, loss of jobs, lowering of wages, loss of benefits, rising crime, and decline in their quality of life. The corporate media even spins it to make it look all so normal. It tells us what they want us to know, who is to blame...and then a word from our sponsors, we're back to the illusion of our pretend reality.



List of Designated Terrorists Groups

French Revolution

American Revolution

The Muslim Migrant Invasion and the Collapse of Europe

Muslim Invasion of Europe

Trump's Right: It's An Invasion