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

  

The "Great Reset" : Fascism with a Smile?

I'm sure you all have the heard the term, the "Great Reset". However, like most people, few have any real understanding of just what the term means and how it would play out. First, the term itself comes from World Economic Forum, which is a global conglomerate of very wealthy individuals working within global corporations (mostly banking and financial) and government.  

The proposal, first put forward by Klaus Schwab, a German economist, engineer, and founder of the WEF, describes the "Great Reset Initiative" (aka the "Davos Project") in three components aimed at creating a "stakeholder economy" comprised of resilience, equability of economic outcomes, and sustainability using environmental, social, and governance methods of measurement with the objective of creating a Fourth Industrial Revolution.   

Opponents call it a new version of fascism or socialism (two diametrically opposed systems) . These individuals allege that what the "Great Reset" proposes is nothing short of global ownership and control of everything by corporate/government "representatives". They will own literally everything, including property and claim that we will even be happy about it.

We will supposedly be assigned points to measure our cooperation with the system similar to a social credit score. The more points, the more we are allowed access to such as travel or greater internet use. The fewer the points, the less.  China already has a similar setup despite its claim to be a "socialist" country.

A number of world leaders, such as now King Charles of England, have already signed on to it, along with Kristalina Georgieva, a Bulgarian economist and a director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), U.S. President Joe Biden, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and the UK's former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson to name a few. This is the "New World Order" former President George H.W. Bush spoke about years ago.  

The attached video, produced by the Centre for Risk Analysis, a South African think tank, and host David Ansara, provides an excellent discussion with author, Douglas Kruger  about the ideological backdrop to this proposed economic system in light of the public's response to the Covid-19 pandemic, poverty, technology, and  wage inequality (hint: it doesn't get better).  

The video is fairly short, just under 12 minutes and worth your time to watch. I'm also including a video (11:31 minutes) made by the World Economic Forum about their proposed "Great Reset" project for comparison. There's no doubt that given some of the world's most powerful and wealthy players are involved that some portion of what they propose will be put into practice. America, as most everyone knows, has already moved into becoming a neo-fascist corporatocracy under the defacto control of an oligarchy. A "Great Reset" make be closer than you think.

 

Click Here:

CRA: "You will OWN NOTHING and be HAPPY"

Click Here:

WEF: What is theFourth Revolution?

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! 

 

WEF: The Great Reset

The Great Reset

OpenDemocracy: Conspiracy theories aside, there is somethingfishy about the Great Reset

 

Hillsdale College Imprimis: What is the Great Reset?

Should Joe Biden Run For President Again? Here's What America Thinks

 

At 80 years of age, President Joe Biden plans on running for a second term as president. If elected (and that's a big "if"), Biden will be the oldest individual ever elected President. So, how do Americans feel about a second term for elderly Biden?

According to a NBC poll, 70% of likely voters oppose a Biden candidacy. 68% of them cite his age as the reason. Of those, 48% say it's a "major" reason. Of course, there's no denying Biden's lack of mental focus and ability to stay on task. There's long been rumors that Biden suffers from some sort of degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's or dementia.

Perhaps just as importantly that the American public notices it (and the media tries to ignore or downplay it) is the fact that foreign leaders and their media appear to be keenly aware of Biden's lack of cerebral agility.  Foreign leaders such as North Korea's Kim Jong Un, Russia's Putin, or China's Xi Jinping have stepped up their aggressiveness particularly because of Biden's perceived weakness.

These are certainly legitimate concerns. After all, according to the same poll, while just 41% said they would vote for Biden, 47% said they will back the Republican nominee. That could spell bad news for Zelenskyy, who is counting on continued American aid to wage his war against Russia. It could also be a possible problem for North Korea and China too.

China's President, Xi Jinping, has been taking his country into largely uncharted waters thanks to a weak Biden. China has stepped up its industrialization and expansion overseas as it sets it eyes on supplanting the United States in the Pacific, not to mention replacing the United States as the world's largest economy. Meanwhile, China has become quite aggressive as far as Taiwan is concerned.

The Chinese have already used the COVID virus as a cover to smother the burgeoning pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong (of course, there are many who are convinced that the COVID outbreak was a purely biological attack on the world---though primarily on the West and the U.S. in particular---in order to see how it would respond).

Having watched the fiasco that was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and the restoration of the Taliban and ISIS, I would imagine that Xi Jinping and his party boys are seriously contemplating their chances of a successful invasion of Taiwan while the U.S. has a weak president, a weak economy, a divided populace, and a weaken military, or to wait and see the results of the upcoming elections improve their odds.

If Biden should actually run and win (which, again, if a big "if"), that potentially gives Xi  more time to prepare for what will be at least a regional crisis and would put the U.S. and its allies in the Pacific eyeball to eyeball with Beijing. I suspect that China's move will be swift, perhaps following a electromagnetic (EMP) or cyber attack to delay communications with Washington. Rest assured that any action by China will make the old German blitzkrieg look like slow motion. It will also be the unenviable job of the Taiwanese people to hold on until some kind of response can be mounted.

Meanwhile, North Korea is up to its predictable antics again, meaning they need another bailout-sum-extortion from the West once more. Kim Jong Un, North Korea's "Supreme Leader", seems to go through these attempts at intimidation and self-promotion periodically in the hopes of gaining some sort of economic bailout package in the form of "concessions" and agreements from the West, not to mention gaining some attention for himself as proof that he's a serious player on the world stage.

Kim is aware of the situation regarding Biden and the United States, so perhaps a confrontation between the U.S. and his Chinese benefactors would provide a good opportunity to attack South Korea. Of course, Tehran has been turning up its influence in the region since they don't seem to be expecting any real American response coming their way as long as Biden is in office.

And why should they? America essentially lost a 20 year war in Afghanistan which was originally intended to destabilize and overthrow the Tehran Government and cement as U.S. presence in the region exclusive of Israel. The same unofficial policy applied to Iraq and Syria with much the same result under Bush II, and the Obama/Biden Administration. 

So, if it is not to be Joe Biden, then who? Among Democrats, you have the son of Senator Bobby Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr.  Robert is 69 years old and, much like his father, is focused on reducing the clout of the elites (ie: Deep State). Robert is an environmental attorney and outspoken critic of the COVID vaccines, citing what he calls "questionable" science behind the research. He also believes that the virus was not a natural occurrence, which has earned him the labels of "controversial" and being a "conspiracy nut" by many on the Left. 

Another Democrat is 70 year old Marianne Williamson. Her claim to fame is that she is self-help author, having written 14 books on the topic. Ms. Williamson supports a plan to distribute between $200 and $500 billion dollars to various black leaders for community development and education programs. She also backs broader gun control, combating "man-made" climate change, and expanding Obamacare.

One of the "youngsters" considering a run for president is the 49 year old Stacey Adams. Ms. Adams, a former state representative and voting rights activist, has made two unsuccessful attempts at becoming Georgia's governor, but thinks she has a real chance to become the president. In 2021, she was named one of People Magazines "Women Changing the World" and received two NAACP Image Awards.

Also a possible Democrat candidate is Biden's current Secretary of Transportation,  41 year old Pete Buttigieg. Pete is a pretty bright boy. He is a former naval intelligence officer with service in Afghanistan, a graduate of Harvard, a Oxford Rhode scholar with a strong background in foreign policy. He also speaks eight languages.  He considers himself to be a "proud Christian", and, by the way, is openly gay for whatever that's worth. 

There's a few other Democrats also looking at a possible run for the Presidency such as Amy Klobuchar. This would be the 62 year old Senator from Minnesota second attempt at a bite of the golden apple. She previously ran for President in 2020. She considers herself a "modern liberal". Gavin Newsom, age 55, is Governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco.  Gavin has announced that he would like to do for the U.S. what he and his party has done for California. Enough said.

Of course, retreads like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, 73 and Senator Bernie Sanders, the 81 year old from Vermont are contemplating another (yawn) run. This would undoubtedly be the last attempt by either of them. Lastly, is Kamala Harris. The 58 year old Vice President has indicated that in the event her boss doesn't run, she would like to.

Given her position as VP, she would obviously be given serious consideration for backing by the ruling elites. However, Ms. Harris has the dubious honor of having the lowest approval rating---41%-- of any Vice President in recent U.S. history. Not exactly what you want on your presidential resume.

On the Republican side, the 500 pound orange gorilla in the room is the previous president, Donald Trump. "The Donald" as he's often called has been impeached twice and has been on the Establishment's "hit list" since he originally announced his candidacy for President back  in 2015 (and went on to ultimately defeat the "Empress-in-Waiting", Hillary Clinton).

Since the end of his Presidency in January 2021, the media and Establishment haven't missed in beat in what many call a modern day "witch hunt". Currently, Trump is facing 34 felony charges for allegedly  falsifying business records pertaining to the payment of "hush money" to two women, including porn star Stormy Daniels (the money is said to have come from campaign donations made to the Trump campaign) and investigation into what role (if any) he played in the January 6, 2021 Washington protest and partial occupation of the "People's House", aka Congress.

Those in the Trump camp don't think any of this will be much of a problem in securing the Republican nomination. However, that may be overly optimistic. According to the NBC poll, Trump's positive image is just 34% among voters in general.

It should be pointed out too that Biden's popularity isn't too hot either. His disapproval rating is 56%, which is the lowest over the last 70 years. It ties him with former President Ronald Reagan's disapproval rating in 1983. The lowest---40%--- belongs to Jimmy Carter in 1979.  Biden's job approval stands at 41%.

However, when asking just Republicans, Trump's popularity remains unusually high. 70% of the Republican respondents said they stand with Trump despite everything! 68% of Republicans polled thought that indictments and investigations were politically motivated. Perhaps the media's and Establishment's vendetta has had the opposite effect.

Is there an alternative to "The Donald"? Well, maybe. The name that most often pops up is Florida's Ron DeSantis.  According to the NBC Poll, 46% of Republicans said the Trump would be their first choice as the GOP nominee while 31% said DeSantis would be their top choice. Of course, there are quite a few other Republicans looking to run.

Trump's former Vice President, Mike Pence is one of them, but at present his chances look pretty slim. Only 6% of those survey said they would choose Pence as the Republican nominee. It should be mentioned that Trump supporters view Pence as something of a turncoat who failed to support his boss and has since completely turned his back on Trump.

Former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley received just 3% along with South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson.  Vivek Ramaswamy, author and founder of the biopharmaceutical company Roivant Sciences,  picked up just 2%.  

The NBC Poll did reveal that the public in general was tired of both Biden and Trump, especially if the 2024 Presidential Election came down to another run between the two. 60% said they would prefer that Trump stay out of the 2024 Presidential race while 70% said the same thing about Biden. 

As an aside, the poll also asked about whether abortion should legal. The result was that nearly 6 in 10 Americans---58%--- said it should be legal. 38% said it should remain illegal. However, of those, 32% thought there should be some exceptions such as if the mother's life is in danger or there was something catastrophically wrong with the baby. Just 6% said there should be no exceptions.

What makes this poll so interesting is that Americans, regardless of their political leaning, are tired of the mediocre job Biden has done with the economy and world affairs, along with serious concerns about his mental wellbeing. According to them, it's time Biden steps aside.

 The respondents made it equally clear that they were tired of political witch hunt again Donald Trump and would like to see him return to private life. Americans are fed up with this media induced "circus politics". There are new and much more serious challenges facing America. We don't need more distractions or divisions. It's time to turn a new page, be it with someone like Ron DeSantis or Pete Buttigieg or hopefully someone new. Regardless, we're not buying what the two corporate owned parties are selling.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out 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! 

 

NBC News poll: Nearly 70% of GOP voters stand behind Trumpamid indictment and investigations

New Poll: Whopping 70% Think Biden Shouldn't Run Again...

Who Is Running For President in 2024? Confirmed and RumoredRepublican and Democratic Candidates

Modern liberalism in the United States

Reading America's Fortune Cookie: Is War with China Likely?

Let's face it. The war in Ukraine isn't going well for anyone. Putin's military advisors anticipated a brief invasion followed by a ceasefire and talks about how to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty without a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil and protecting Russian national security. But that didn't happen.

Instead, the U.S. and its European surrogate, NATO, immediately began pumping billions of dollars in weapons into Ukraine, not to mention providing intelligence about Russian troop movement. The Western media went into full propaganda mode to condemn not just the invasion (rightly so), but also to spin U.S. and NATO involvement and the reasons for the invasion in the first place.

The result has been a stalemate measured in dead civilians, massive destruction of towns and cities and the growing specter of nuclear war. Without U.S. and NATO involvement, the invasion would likely have been over with a few months at best with a practical compromise the likely result. But then again, had Russia not been forced to invade to protect its national security from an encirclement of NATO missiles on its western front, there would have been to need for anyone's involvement and nobody would be dead.  

The only nation to present a peace proposal thus far has been China, which the United States and its allies dismissed out of hand. The primary reason is that China is a ally of Russia, and besides, it has recently started providing military support to Russian troops operating in Ukraine.  You would think that after a year of war, the United Nations or someone would have stepped forward to offer a solution to stop the war, but apparently not. Why?

The most likely reason is pressure from Washington. Washington has long seen Russia a potential threat to its military and economic primacy, well, that is until the collapse of the USSR in 1989 and implosion of Soviet Russia in 1991.  Since then, the United States has sought to impose a "Pax Americana" and the global integration of economies under the auspices of a U.S. led "New World Order".  However, not everyone wants to play along.

Russia, along a few other countries such as Cuba, Brazil, Iran, and China, have been able to go about their merry way outside of this American hegemony. A few have formed their own economic solution, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which formed "BRIC" in 2009. Subsequently, the name has been changed to "BRICS" with the addition of South Africa in 2010. 

There have been other economic blocs formed outside the sphere of American influence such as "The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" (RCEP), which was signed into being in 2020 and took effect in 2022. RCEP is now the largest economic partnership in the world.

At its head is China, and it includes Vietnam, Australia, Brunei, Japan, Cambodia, Laos, Singapore, New Zealand, and Thailand. It doesn't not include the United States. RCEP accounts for some 30% of the world's economy, 30% of the world's population, and will have an economic reach of at least 2.2 billion potential customers.  

China has established itself not just as the world's second largest economy with a GDP of $17.73 billion dollars(compared to the U.S. with a GDP of $23.32 billion), but is expected to surpass the U.S. by 2035. By 2075 or sooner, India will also pass the U.S., leaving the U.S. as the third largest global economy.

China seeks to do more than just wrestle economic control of the Pacific Rim from the United States. It intends to back up with military might, with a particular focus on its navy.  The Chinese have embarked on the largest military upgrade of any nation since WWII although the United States still spends more on its military budget than the next nine nations combined including China.

In 2022, China spent roughly $293 billion dollars, or 13.9% of its GDP upgrading its military while the United States spent $801 billion dollars or 37.9% of the GDP on its military. Together, China and the U.S. make up 50% of all military expenditures with a combined $1.1 trillion dollars. 

By comparison, Russia spent just 3.1% of its GDP, or $65.9 billion on its military. The UK spent slightly more, or about $68.4 billion dollars. It's worth nothing that China's military expenditures have increased 27 years in a row. The result is that China now has the newest and largest navy in the world by tonnage.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is still the best trained and equipped, it's suffering from combat fatigue. After 20 years in Afghanistan, the United States left with virtually nothing to show for it. Yes, it took out Al Qaeda's top leadership including Osama bin Laden, but Al Qaeda barely skipped a beat, replacing leaders almost immediately and continuing with its operations. The same goes for the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban were already back in charge before the last U.S. military planes had left Kabul.  

To make matters worse, following the withdrawal, the U.S. military saw a rapid exodus of its highly skilled men and women (most of whom having served at least four tours of combat duty) with replacement proving to be slow and time consuming. In addition, the military is woefully in need of a total overhaul or replacement of practically everything from ships to tanks to aircraft.

During the course of the war, the United States flew 55,150 sorties and dropped over 337,000 bombs and missiles (including some 13,000 precision guided munitions) in Afghanistan. That works out to be an average of about 49 bombs per day every day. In 2019 alone, a record number of 7,423 bombs were dropped on Afghanistan.  The result was a severe shortage in our stockpile of practically everything from bombs to bullets, not to mention spare parts particularly for aircraft.

As an aside, while we were busy blowing up Afghanistan, we were also busy rebuilding it back in our image. U.S. taxpayers shelled out $145,000 billion dollars over the 20 years in rebuilding its infrastructure, schools, hospitals and office buildings, its electrical grid as well as training and equipping its security forces, stabilizing its government, and propping up its economy...and the Taliban got it all, not to mention billions in military equipment and hardware we left behind.

Starting between now and 2035, the U.S. military is expected to undergo a major overhauls of its ships (combat and auxiliary), aircraft, tanks, trucks, artillery, and so forth. If it moves or shoots, it's getting a makeover.  Some ships, however, are beyond the makeover phase. The Pentagon confirmed in late 2022 that 26 ships will be decommissioned, leaving the Navy shorthanded with just 276 active ships (300 is considered its minimal effective force)

However, over the next ten years the Navy is expected to be back up to its fighting weight with the addition of eight new "deep water" combat ships and a projected fleet of 500 ships by 2040; most of whom are destined for the Pacific (by comparison, the British Royal Navy, once the world's dominate naval power, has just 76 combat ships while Australia has a mere 44).

The problem is that China is already at or near its fighting weight. China currently has 355 combat ready ships, including two aircraft carriers and a third, the Fujian, preparing for sea trials. Analysts predict that by 2030, China will have five aircraft carriers and ten new submarines capable of carrying nuclear ballistic missiles. However, China still lacks adequately trained carrier based pilots. Nevertheless,  projections show that if China continues to build its fleet at the same rate it has over the past 27 years, it will have a whooping 425 warships by 2030.

China is also increasing the number of missile carrying destroyers, cruisers and landing craft as well.  China's new Type 075 amphibious assault landing ship will come in at 40,000 metric tons with the capability of carrying 30 helicopters along with landing craft and just over 1000 assault troops.  The Type 075 replaces the Type 071 by 15,000 tons. There are now 32 Type 075's combat ready.

The Type 071 is another, albeit slightly smaller, amphibious land ship. Displacing 20,000 metric tons, it has capacity to carry four helicopters and roughly 800 combat troops. There are currently six known Type 071 ships in service at this time.

In addition to its combat fleet, China has greatly expanded its merchant fleet as well. Something you would expect with a growing economy. China now has 40.3% of the world's merchant shipbuilding market. Compare that to South Korea and Japan which has a 31.5% and a 22.2% share respectively.

China now has the second largest fleet of ships with 5,600, of which approximately 800 merchant ships. Greece has the largest, with 20.4% of the world's tonnage while China has 14.4% and Japan is third with 13% of the world's tonnage. China also has completed or updated the number of ship building facilities to six.

So, bringing this all together, what does it mean for the United States? The United States is still capable of projecting its military might around the world on a moment's notice. However, the question is whether it is still capable of maintaining that projection against a determined foe like Russia or China.

According to a report by the Heritage Foundation entitled "Index of U.S. Military Strength", only the Marines were rated at "strong" while the Navy and Space Force were categorized as "weak". The Air Force was rated as "very weak" and the Army was "marginal".  

Our stockpile of munitions and spare parts were badly depleted by our 20 year misadventure in Afghanistan, and much of what we were able to build back has found its way to Kyiv. The U.S. Navy, our principal tool in the projection of our foreign policy, is currently undergoing a phased overhaul and updating which isn't expected to be completed before 2035. The other branches are also undergoing their own updating which will take several years to complete.

Meanwhile, China is already at or near its ideal fighting weight, with the development of many of its ships progressing ahead of schedule. China's economy, while slowed, is still doing well while ours remains sluggish thanks to rising inflation and lingering effects of COVID on the economy.  Meanwhile, China has become much more aggressive.

It has claimed both the East and South China Seas as its own, and warned other nations to stay away. It has declared some of the territorial waters around South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, and India are in fact international waters, and thus has asserted its fishing rights there. China is also involved in a "warm war" with India along its mutual border in the Himalayas.

The creation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) may have a severe impact of America's ability to protect its interests in the Pacific, especially in light of China's growing economy, its expanded merchant fleet, along with a modernized navy capable and apparently ready to defend its economic interests.

For allies like Taiwan, the future doesn't look bright. Over the next seven to ten years, Taiwan will be particularly vulnerable. China has the means and ability to block off the South and East China Seas, and from there launch as rapid air and sea invasion of the island nation before the United States or anyone else has an opportunity to do anything.

This is especially true given our current preoccupation with Ukraine (and doubly so should we make the mistake up upping the ante and forcing Putin into some direct action against NATO. To make matters more interesting, China's ally, North Korea, could start something with South Korea which would further divert the attention a weakened U.S. military (some military analysts have states that given our current situation, we are unlikely to be able to operate effectively on two fronts). 

Of course, there's the economic angle. The U.S. is heavily dependent on Chinese imports, especially on electronics and computer chips. We depend on China for textiles, batteries, and machinery needed  in industry and even the military such as Neodymium which powers magnets used in hard drives or Praseodymium in the manufacture of aircraft engines which are "rare earth" metals.  

The U.S. doesn't manufacture these and other rare earth metals in abundance, but China does. In fact, they control 90% of the world's rare earth market. Heck, most of our cell phones---72%---are made in China!

 90% of our antibiotics come from China. 80% of the ingredients used in our medicines come from China. They also control 90% of the nine critical vitamins, 70% of acetaminophen, and 50% of the anti-coagulant Heparin.  Most of the medical devises we commonly use are of Chinese origin. 

Where does that leave us? The short answer is between a rock and a hard place. Internally we are increasingly unstable socially, economically, and politically. We can no longer afford to be arrogant about the supposed superiority of American capitalism or invincible military might as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown.

We can't forget that China also owns about 20% or $1 billion dollars of our debt. They can call the tune economically with their influence on our domestic market, and even their growing economy and military power, they are likely to exert de facto regional control over the Pacific Rim and eventually they may surpass us as the world's most power nation. From all appearances, China has outfoxed the fox.    

 

 If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out 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! 

 

Asia forms world's biggest trade bloc, a China-backed group excluding U.S.

Ranked: Top Ten Countries by Military Spending

 

How is China Modernizing its Navy?

 

China's Navy Could Have 5 Aircraft Carriers, 10 ballistic Missile Submarines by 2030 Say CSBA Report

US military in decline, threats from China "formable" , report says

 

Executive Summary of the 2023 Index of U.S. MilitaryStrength

 

U.S. Dependent on China forVital Ingredients

We're Too Dependent on China For Too Many Critical Goods, Especially Medicine

Preparing for War with China, 2025-2032

What Will Drive China to War?

U.S. General's Prediction of War with China 'in 2025' Risks Turning Worse Fears Into Reality

 

Predicting the 2022 Election Results: Beating the Oddsmakers and Political Trends

The U.S. House of Representatives (more commonly referred to as "Congress", although that term actually relates to both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate) is comprised of 435 seats. This year's election is one of those rare ones where all 435 seats in the House are up for election. 

The Biden Administration is, naturally, boasting that House Democrat candidates are going to sweep the ballots across America on November 8th.  Of course, that's hogwash despite President Biden's unrealistic assessment of his popularity or that of his policies. Few political pundits agree with the president or those among the Left leaning media.

 In fact, Biden's disapproval rating is currently 55%, which is amusingly being heralded as a positive by Left leaning pundits! Democratic candidates are looking for presidential coattails, they might want to look elsewhere. With half of his term nearing completion, Biden has yet to sustain a majority approval rating.

As an aside, the Democratic controlled House has an approval rating of just 23% (it reached a high of 36% in March 2021). Broken down by party, the approval rating of House Democrats is roughly 39% while House Republicans only have a 6% approval rating.

However, there's a certain irony in these numbers. While the vast number of voters disapprove of Congress, Biden, the judicial system, and the overwhelming majority of U.S. institutions (the most notable exception being the armed forces), when asked if their representatives in Congress deserve to be reelected in November, 53% of those polled in June said yes!

So, I guess that means that while the majority of Americans disapprove of Congress's performance, they believe the problem is not their representatives but someone else's. A classic example of finger pointing and buck passing. I suppose this type of confusion goes to show that the mainstream media's propaganda apparatus is working as intended.

Until Americans realize that the corruption is systemic across the board, we will continue to see disapproval ratings in the mid 70% range (or higher) and incumbent reelection rates of 98%.  Of course, the mistake of Citizens United, partisan gerrymandering, and the absence of term limits has all but ensured that voters and potential challengers will have little say in either election outcomes or policy decisions.

 In fact, there's an actual term for it. It's called the "incumbent advantage" thanks to corporate financial backing, restricted debates, and media propaganda, not to mention use of taxpayer money to do defacto campaigning through manufactured public media events, mailers, "surveys", and self-promoting newsletters. The result being a near total stagnation of Congress. By the way, here's something to ponder as you go to the polls on Tuesday November 8th.

With all the historic demonization of the old Soviet Russian political system, did you know they had a higher rate of turnover in their Politburo (their "Congress") than we do? A 65% turnover rate wasn't uncommon. Even under Gorbachev, whose reforms essentially ended Communism in Russia, the turnover rate was still 31%. China's current rate of turnover in its Politburo is 54%! Within its controlling Central Committee, its turnover rate is 57%. Our average Congressional turnover rate is less than 2%. Makes you wonder who best represents its citizens doesn't it?

The election on November 8th marks one of the most important elections since Donald Trump's defeat in 2020. Both sides are vying for control of the House and Senate, not to mention that the outcome will set the stage for the 2024 Presidential race (which increasingly appears to be "Trump-less" thanks to bipartisan and media character assassination by innuendo). So, what's the most likely outcome?

Given that Wall Street is heavily invested in the control and outcome of elections (especially federal), what better place to look at the odds than Las Vegas?  According to "Sin City" oddsmakers, the Republicans will likely not just hold onto their seats, but will also pick up a few Democrat held seats.

In fact, the current betting odds appear to strongly favor Republicans. The site "FiveThirtyEight" is holding that 195 Republican seats are safe compared to 163 Democratic seats. The Republicans need 218 seats to have a majority, leaving 75 seats in contention.

According to "Gambling.com", the Democrats aren't fronting candidates in 23 districts, while the Republicans are giving up 14 seats. In looking at various gambling sites, "Gambling.com" states that Republican odds have gone from 2 to 5 to 2 to 7, and now have 1 to 8 chance of taking the House, which translates to a 89% likelihood. So, Republican control of the House isn't a sure thing, but it's damn close.

In the Senate, the Republican Party has a 60% chance of becoming the majority while the chances of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is just 47.6% according to bookmakers (the Senate is currently 50/50, with Democrat and Vice President Kamala Harris being the deciding vote). The odds also favor the GOP taking the Senate seats in Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Democrats are favored with taking Senate seats in New Hampshire and Arizona.

The non-bookmaking site Politico, in conjunction with Steve Shepard who does predict elections, is giving a strong nod to Republican House candidates and even money on the Senate races. As for gubernatorial races, Shepard thinks that Democrats will likely hold the majority of governorships.

While the number of safe seats and competitive races differ slightly from site to site, they mostly show a strong Republican outcome with the GOP likely taking control of the Senate. House seats will be a bit more competitive with Republicans gaining a slight margin. Democrats will have the majority of gubernatorial seats  Relatively few incumbents will have much to worry about and will likely retain their seats as typical.

This then will set the stage for the 2024 Presidential race. At this point it's assumed that Biden will run for reelection with Kamala Harris as his running mate again despite polling some of the lowest approval ratings for a VP ever (other possible contenders absent Biden include his Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Governor Gavin Newsom (CA), and Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA), and Bernie Sanders (NY)). 

At this juncture, it's unlikely "The Donald" will run again despite saber rattling to that effect. Instead, look for Florida's Ron DeSantis as the most likely future GOP nominee, but don't discount Tom Cotton (R- Ark) or former Secretary of State and CIA director Mike Pompeo.  Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is a possibility too.

 Former Trump VP Mike Pence (R-IN) has made some noise, as has Ted Cruz (R-GA), but both are seen as retreads. Nikki Haley, former Governor of North Carolina and UN ambassador doesn't seem to have the necessary savvy to be president, though she'd be good prospective running mate as VP.

Personally, my pick for a Vice President running mate would be Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. The former Democrat is now a member of the nation's largest political bloc---the Independents. In addition she is conservative on the issues that count without being fanatical. She is the former Representative for Hawaii's 2nd District, retired military, well spoken, intelligent, and comes across well on television. She's also a pretty good debater.

In addition, she is a Pacific Islander. If she can remain an Independent, she'd be a boon on a Republican Presidential ticket by being a rallying point for the majority Independents and conservatives as well as conservative leaning moderates on both sides of the aisle.

So, there you have it. A little political history and a glimpse at the future, both near term and in two years (which in politics can be an eternity) based on current trends and polling results. Nevertheless, what ultimately matters is how you respond.

It's up to you---the voter---to direct the national discourse and determine the future of our country, not the professional political class, corporate money and power brokers which comprises the ruling Oligarchy.  Finally, please be sure to vote on Tuesday November 8th. We're depending on you.

 

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 AnotherOpinion.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Initiatives v. Oligarchy: Why Are Sitting Members ofCongress Almost Always Reelected?

 

Reuters: 55% of American disapprove of the president

 

Gallup: Recent Congressional Approval Trending Higher

Gorbachev's quiet Kremlin revolution

China After the Party Conference: Welcome to Xi's People's Republic of Control

Turnover rate of the CCP Central Committee and Politburofrom 1973 to 2012

Midterm Betting Latest: Who Will Control the House andSenate in 2022

PoliticoForecast2022

Potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates race to topbest-seller lists

The Nord Stream Pipelines: The West vs. Russia Again

In the Baltic Sea, two Nord Stream gas and oil pipelines were destroyed in a series of three underwater explosions. The victims of sabotage.  One of the pipelines had been used to supply Europe (and particularly Europe's economic engine, Germany) with critically needed oil and natural gas.

Both lines had been shut down previously. The result of sanctions imposed by Russia's President Putin in light of the EU's support of Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia. The other pipeline was still partially under construction. The result of the explosions was three or possible four ruptures.

Both pipelines were owned by Gazprom, the Russian owned energy giant, in conjunction with Western partners at a cost of several billion dollars (it's worth noting that Gazprom generates around $115 billion dollars annually and is the world's largest natural gas company).

The question which is now being hotly debated in the halls of Congress and the Pentagon, the United Nations Security Council,  the capital of the EU---Brussels---and the halls of other capitals in Europe, the Middle East, and China is who was responsible for the attack.

It's generally agreed that because of the location of the pipelines, at a depth of approximately 361 feet beneath the turbulent Baltic Sea, could have only been accomplished by a tiny handful of nations---Russia through its highly trained Spetsnaz special forces; the United States Navy and its premier global strike force, the SEALs.

 China has its specialized naval assault units, the Jiaolong Assault Team, which are better known as the "Sea Dragon Commandos"; and the British Special Boat Service, also referred to by its initials, the SBS  (as an aside, it's one of the very few type of operations that the Israelis, known for their daring and near impossible attacks anywhere in the world, wouldn't have been able to accomplish. Besides, Israel doesn't have a dog in this fight).   

The two pipelines, known as Nord Stream 1 and 2, originate from Vyborg and Ust-Luga on the Russian coast bordering the Baltic and extends Greifswald in Germany. The first leak (Nord Stream 2) was reported by Swedish investigators on September 26th. The second incident involved two leaks involving pipeline 1 the following day, on September 27th. 

The damage on pipeline 1 are close together, while the damage between both pipelines aren't in close proximity to each other, which means the damage had to be closely coordinated, which again points to one of the major powers.

The majority of Western governments have either directly or indirectly indicated that Russia was behind the attacks. German Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) and Chief of the Navy, Jan Christian Kaack, has stated that Russia has capability for such sabotage when he stated that Russia had "considerable capacity" in its underwater operations, which is true.

Looking at pipeline 1, it covers 745 miles from St. Petersburg in Russia to Germany's Northeastern coast while the second pipeline runs 767 miles. In addition, there are other transmissions lines running from both pipelines (the OPEL and the NEL pipelines, which connect to other lines throughout Europe). The oil and gas originates from Yuzhno-Russkoye petroleum field in the Krasnoselkupsky District of the Tyumen Oblast in West central Siberia.

The field, which was previously unreachable due to the historical dense permafrost, has been made harvestable thanks in large part to warming temperatures and improved technology, which has allowed full time operation. The field has proven gas reserves of 805.3 billion cubic meters of gas with estimated reserves of another 1000 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

Meanwhile, proven oil reserves are about 5.7 million tons. At present, Gazprom operates 26 gas wells  which reportedly produce an estimated 15 million cubic meters of natural gas every single day of the week all year long.

 It bears mentioning that Gazprom has been working on a deal with China to construct a pipeline from the Yuzhno-Russkoye field to Northwestern China via the "Power of Siberia 2" pipeline (aka the "Altai gas pipeline") and end in the Xinjiang region where it would connect with China's East-West pipeline.   The pipeline could also run through Mongolia, which would be a boon for the Mongolian economy.

 Xinjiang Province, however, is home to the Uyghurs, a minority Muslim population which in recent years has become increasing resistant to Beijing's rule in what's known as the "Xinjiang Conflict". An oil and natural gas pipeline of this magnitude would present a tempting target for the Salafist Turkistan Islamic Party and the East Turkestan Independence Movement, two separatist groups comprised of Uyghur Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucian nationalists unified in their demand for autonomy from Beijing.

As for the two Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic, they too present more than tempting targets. While Western leaders led by the U.S. and President Biden blame Russia for the damage to their own pipelines, Russia and its allies claim that the United States is behind the incident.

President Biden had previously made threats concerning the Nord Stream pipelines. Specifically, Biden previously said that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipeline "would not move forward" and added that "there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring it to an end". 

Since the announcement of that the two pipelines were destroyed, the establishment media has tried to whitewash Biden's statements and do some fancy cover up.  Nevertheless, whether he intended that specifically to be threat or not, it doesn't look good.

In fact, President Putin took Biden's comments as a threat, and now with both pipelines out of commission it certainly appears to be a threat fulfilled. Of course, the U.S. has more than the capability and experience, not to mention intelligence expertise, to carry out an operation like this.

As a result, Putin announced that he intends to "destroy the West's energy infrastructure" as he blamed the "Anglo Saxons" for the damage (fortunately for me I'm mostly Celt and Scandinavian). The question is whether or not he can actually do it. While it remains to be seen, with Europe dependant on 40% of Russia's oil and gas to heat homes and run businesses (and Germany, Europe's industrial heart, depending on Russia for 70% of its oil and gas), it can't be good for the EU, even with limited U.S. support.

The importance of the pipelines to the Russian and European economies  and the amount of money invested in the projects can't be understated. Nord Stream 1 has been in operation since 2011 at a cost of $7.3 billion dollars while Nord Stream 2's price tag was around $11 billion dollars. It was started in 2011 and has been operational since September 2021.  

We can't overlook the possibility of routine failure. The pipelines are 361 feet down in water which average 51 degrees this time of year. At depths of 350+, the water temperature is around 15 to 20 degrees. Plus, while poor quality and/or workmanship shouldn't be an issue, but it can't be entirely ruled out. Pipeline failures aren't uncommon.

As for Russia being responsible for sabotaging either pipeline, it's unlikely. Russia has already imposed its own sanctions against the EU and shut off the valves. There's no need to destroy the pipelines on top of that. Besides, consider the costs to repair either line which could run potentially in the billions and take upwards of six months to complete. Just in closing the pipelines, Russia is taking a huge financial hit. Russia oil and gas shipments to Europe had been bringing in $120 billion annually.  

As long as the war in Ukraine continues, the cost will escalate on all sides until the unthinkable becomes the only logic option. Neither Moscow or Kyiv seems able to deliver a final knockout punch. Ukraine is hanging in there against the full might of the Russian military thanks largely to aide being provided by the EU/NATO, the United States, and an intensive Western PR campaign. Russia's mounting losses, in the face of U.S. led sanctions are starting to severely affect its economy.

As a result, President Putin has struck back by cutting off critically need oil and gas supplies, but that's may not be enough. Putin has strongly hinted at military intervention in certain European border countries and even the possibility of using tactical nukes to end the war. It's unlikely Putin would do so, but some analysis have cautioned not to rule it out entirely. Russian credibility is also on the line here.

Meanwhile, Europe is bracing for a colder than usual winter, as well as a serious blow to its economy with much higher prices for everything from food to rent to gas and staying warm thanks to Russian oil and gas sanctions.  Public unrest and riots shouldn't be ruled out.

In the United States, Washington's pro-Kyiv propaganda isn't working as well as the establishment media had hoped. Putin has proven to be popular in the U.S. (more so than Biden, who's approval ratings continue to hit record lows) as the U.S. economy slows amid rising prices and interest rates. The Republicans aren't doing any better.

Regardless of U.S. politics, the war in Ukraine needs to come to a quick end. It's cause was officially Kyiv's request to join NATO; something Russia has long opposed. The real issue was, and always has been over resources. In this case, oil and gas in the Donbas and Black Sea. With it, Ukraine becomes a new player on the block, especially if it has the protection of NATO. Without it, Ukraine is just another second tier economy.

The Washington led West is going all out to make Russia the bad guy, and in many ways they are, but wars are seldom black and white. Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington bear their share of responsibility for this war too. For Moscow, it's a matter of national security. There was nothing new about Moscow's refusal to allow NATO to encircle its western border or be forced to kneel to a "new global order", whatever that means. Meanwhile, while politicians dicker, generals plan, the rich get richer, ordinary people die.

 

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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Nord Stream gas 'sabotage': who's to blame and why?

Biden says the Nord Stream 2 pipeline won't move ahead if Russia invades Ukraine

 

Russia Blows Up Gas Pipelines, Declaring an All-out EnergyWar It May Have Already Lost

Nord Stream repair may take at least six months, sayslawmaker

The Yuzhno-Russkoye Field

Russia has cut off gas supplies to Europe indefinitely