Russia U.S. relations, Post WW2, Parts 6 and 7.

 PART 6

NEW COLD WAR BEGINS

Boris Yeltsin stated that his goal was to transform social economics into a capitalist market economy and nationwide privatization. The 1990's were a period of economic depression and much anxiety about the future. Yeltsin survived a coup attempt and cracked down on political opponents. It was no easy task to move a country from communism to capitalism. There was also a war in Chechnya that was suppressed by the Russian Federation. One must note that the Soviet Union was the first to take notice of the danger of Islamic fundamentalism. While dealing with much adversity, Yeltsin was still re-elected in 1996, but he was in ill health with severe heart problems. On Dec. 31, 1999, Yeltsin resigned and the then prime minister, Vladimir Putin, succeeded him. Putin had moved up quickly from the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg to the prime minister in less than 8 years. Yeltsin had appointed him prime minister in August of 1999, and he was approved by a strong margin in the Duma. He ran for president in the 2000 election and won with 53% of the vote. The Russian economy grew for 8 straight years, helped by high commodity prices. In his first four year term the Gross domestic product increased by 72%. He had some success in diminishing the power of the oligarchs. He was re-elected in 2004 with 73% of the vote. In his second term he increasingly took more power unto himself. He was also president of the "Unity Party" which was becoming the dominate party in the country. He was seen as taking more and more power and began to see an increase in demonstrations and opposition. At the same time he also had made meaningful reforms that bettered the life of Russians. The Unity Party won 64% of the vote in the Duma elections and Putin enjoyed a high popularity with the citizens.

Russia and the United States had favorable relations in many ways, considerable success in limiting nuclear weapons, a joint space venture that continues today, joint support against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and many more agreements too numerous for this blog. The inclusion of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary by NATO in 1999 was not protested too much because of the instability of the country and all the problems associated with shifting to a free market economy. But when the next NATO expansion was proposed, and then consummated, the attitude changed to a wariness of the motives of the U.S. and the West. The plan proposed by Bush 2  to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was countered by the Russian Federation. The Federation implied their missiles would be aimed at those installations and it was even suggested that they might take them out. Relations definitely became more tense. There were many meetings with Bush 1, then Clinton, Bush 2, and finally Obama. While much progress was made, the expansion of NATO  to former Warsaw Pact countries and then the placing of missiles on their border set the stage for much more distrust. Additionally, Putin accused Secretary of State Hilary Clinton of being involved with internal opposition in the 2011 election. Joe Biden made derogatory comments about the Russian economy and military power, stating that the U.S. had the stronger hand. Neo-cons continuously bragged of defeating the Soviet Union.

In 2008, due to constitutional limits on consecutive terms. Putin was barred from running for president. Dmitry Medvedev was elected president and he appointed Putin as his prime minister. This sparked protests and outrage across the country. Prime minister Putin worked on correcting the demographic declines in the country and encouraging an increase in the birth rate with subsidies. The church was re instituted and the Russian Orthodox church was repaid for property seized after the revolution. In 2012 he was able to again run for the presidency and won with 63% of the vote. While all polling places were monitored, the opposition claimed fraud and international groups claimed irregularities. Tensions with the West increased. In 2012 the Russian Duma, with Putin's support, outlawed homosexual propaganda to minors. They stated that no action was to be taken against homosexuals, but the law was to protect the children. This was followed by outrage in the West.

Up to this time one would have to say Russian actions were mostly resistance to any further encroachment by NATO and a desire to set their own path. The verbal onslaught from the U.S. and the West increased with accusations against Putin and a blatant attempt to embarrass Russia. This was evident during the 2014 Winter Olympics, when Bob Costas, the announcer for NBC sports, degraded everything he could about the Russian facilities and expressed his political bias against everything Russian. While Vladimir Putin may not be the West's image of a democratic leader and this may be true, this situation was not a one sided affair. It seems Russia and Putin pose a dilemma for the U.S. neo-cons who would like to isolate Russia from all foreign affairs and would prefer a cold war and the left who view Putin's rejection of socialism and his resistance to allow homosexual activists a free reign in Russia as treasonous to their cause.

This situation was about to enter a new era of not just Russian resistance, but actual provocation by Putin toward the West.

originally published 1/29/17  part 6 of 7

PART 7

COLD WAR INTENSIFIES

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. and the Russian Federation had nearly 20 years of relatively good relations. There were many agreements on nuclear arms reduction, missile defense systems, joint space venture etc. These relations were conducted between George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush 2 and Barack Obama. Their Russian counterparts were Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.

They cooperated on international terrorism and criminal activity, AIDS, and humanitarian issues. Russia was concerned about U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Russia supported the first gulf war but opposed the invasion of Iraq, but abstained from voting against the U.S. in the U.N.. Russia complained, without taking any action, about the expansion of NATO. The U.S. complained about Russia's action in Chechnya and Georgia, which has a lot to do with Islamic terrorism on their southern border.

One of the Russian Federation's primary goals after the dissolution of the Soviet Union was to be admitted into International organizations on trade, economics etc. They were a permanent member of the U.N. since its founding, but there seemed to be a reluctance by the U.S. to accept them as an influential member of the world community.

While the U.S. has over 200 years of managing a democratic Republic, the Russians have 25 years of transitioning to self government. There were, and still are, many in the state department who would rather keep Russia isolated and contained. This was the objective in the expansion of NATO. It may be that Vladimir Putin began to see that the policy of the west may be to never accept Russia on equal terms, unless they completely submit to the west. This would be in all things, culturally, as well as economically, and a much diminished military capacity.  It is understandable that there is a fear of a strong economically prospering Russia, but in the long run can containment result in a positive outcome. Constructive engagement was a term that could possibly yield a positive result.

The Ukraine and the European community had been negotiating cooperation and possible membership since the mid 1990's. There were a lot of hurdles to accomplish this. The EU wanted more human rights, and a stronger legal system among other things. The Ukraine's exports to Russia were over 50% of their economy, much of this generated from the ethnic Russian eastern part of the country. They have many co-operative defense manufacturing agreements, all this was complicated by the EU insistence that if they entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine, the Ukraine could not be in a free trade agreement with Russia. 

The Ukraine was almost entirely dependent on Russia for its energy, mostly natural gas. There was perception that the EU and the U.S. wanted to peel the Ukraine away from the Russian Federation. In 2014 there was a revolution in the Ukraine, President Victor Yanukovych and the parliament were dissolved. This was supported by billions of dollars from Washington to foster democracy in the Ukraine. 

The western part of Ukraine was determined to join the EU and was also inclined to join NATO. Eastern Ukraine is mostly a Russian population. Russia did not object to the joining of the EU, but was vehemently against the expansion of NATO right on their border. There was even talk of  replacing the Russian Fleets Naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea with a NATO Naval base. This is not likely to ever happen peaceably.  This led to the Russian occupation of the Crimea. There was a referendum held in the Crimea and they voted 97% to become incorporated into the Russian Federation. The Ukraine was outraged, the West declared the vote illegal and sanctions were leveled by the West on Russia. The Eastern Ukraine erupted in fighting with 2 areas claiming independence. A pew poll taken shortly after the referendum in Crimea found that 91% believe the referendum was free and fair. Also 88% believed Ukraine should recognize the results.

The Ukrainian, Crimean, Russian conflict is a complicated situation. It seems the West is determined to push Russia farther away from the community of nations. The fact that the U.S. and the West has intervened to control the events in Ukraine's politics and pushed to allow Ukraine into NATO are issues that will not be resolved easily. Russia has now upped the anti by supporting opposition groups in the EU and attempted to disrupt the U.S. election. If Russia would attempt to have bases in Mexico or Canada or Cuba it would be a international crisis. The attempt to encircle and move NATO membership closer and closer to the borders of  Russia have most likely come to their limit, unless the West is ready to go to war. It seems the goal may be to encourage regime change in Russia. This is not likely to happen as Putin has a high approval rating in his country and the Russian people understand the situation.

Both Russia and the Ukraine have much to lose in this crisis. There is much interdependence and history between the two countries. It is possible with a new look and a willingness of all parties to cooperate to come to a satisfactory agreement. It is possible that the anti will now be raised much higher, to get the attention of the West and the Ukraine to be more willing for a re-evaluation of their  policy of Russian containment. The West, rather than attempting to punish Putin and Russia, should assist in negotiating a reasonable solution.

While, of course this is a brief summary of the history of U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. There is much I could not cover in this brief summary. There are more details found in Wikipedia, U.S. state department. and many article by the Kissinger group and others. While some may disagree as to who is at fault for this situation, it cannot be denied that there is a serious crisis at hand. This summary may be useful in understanding this relationship as it will most likely be in the news in the coming months.

originally published 2/8/17 part 7 of 7

2/14/2021

The U.S. state department is insisting that an invasion by Russia is imminent, that may be true, It has been made clear in the last few weeks that Russia has sent written proposals to the west to address their concerns and complaints, that did not start in the last few weeks, but is rooted in the U.S. policy of containment, coupled with a U.S. policy of regime change anywhere it should choose. 

A compromise and suitable agreement is possible, that would insure the independence and security of Ukraine and Russia. It is likely that Germany, France and Ukraine would be seriously interested in such an agreement. It seems the U.S. is unwilling to listen or acknowledge any concerns of Russia. It seems they are determined to continue on the same path of the past, a foreign policy that has destroyed the middle east, destabilized the politics and culture of Europe, and now may very well usher in a new era of instability and chaos in Europe. 

This foreign policy has weakened the U.S. both economically and militarily and has damaged the respect formally enjoyed by the United States.

If any agreement is reached it will be from the negotiations of the countries who have the most to lose by a continued confrontation with Russia, such a compromise will be a devastating blow to the ability of the U.S. to control the direction of world events.

Update/5/2025,  I will not go into the history of the present war, I assume many more are now paying attention to this matter than were in 2017 when first published. If you can view the past history with an objective view, I suspect you will have a better understanding of how we came to be now on the brink of WW3. A reality that should be important to any sane person.

Russia U.S. relations, Post WW2, Parts 3-5.

 PART 3

COLD WAR CONTINUES

Stalin seemed reclusive and possibly paranoid, this may have been a well grounded concern, he refused to fly, he seldom left territory under his control, and was ruthless with his adversaries.

Khrushchev was much more outgoing and a bit of a showman, much more willing to travel around the world and made several trips to the U.S.. Khrushchev, who was one of Stalin's top underlings, took part in many of the excesses of the Stalin era. He took part in the purges and did as he was ordered by Stalin. After Stalin's death, he did close the Gulag camps, freed many political prisoners and instituted many reforms that benefited the people. He was willing to use extravagant language and props to bring attention to his cause. He was noted for a tirade at the U.N in 1960 were he pounded his hand on the podium and finally used his shoe to continue making his point. While he still advocated the expansion of communism, he also attempted to warm relations with the West.

With the loosening of the iron grip of Stalin, there were self determination movements in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1950's, and 1960's, some that were put down by force. NATO added Greece and Turkey in 1952. West Germany was added in 1955 and the Soviets then formally instituted the "Warsaw Pact" in the same year. This tit for tat chess game continued and culminated in the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962.  The U.S. stated in no uncertain terms that there could be no Soviet missiles in Cuba. Castro advised the Soviets to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S.. Finally Khrushchev relented and withdrew the weapons with an agreement that the U.S. would withdraw their missiles from Turkey. This was an agreement kept secret until the 1970's. In 1964 Khrushchev was removed and retired from politics, he died of natural causes in 1971. He was a step in the right direction for normalization of relations with the West, but change sometimes moves slowly.

Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who ended  many of the cultural reforms of his  predecessor. He reintroduced some of the oppressive policies of Stalin and stepped up the arms race with the West. He also supported the North Vietnamese in their war with the south. Khrushchev was opposed to the continuation of this war. Brezhnev instituted the "Brezhnev Doctrine", which stated that the Soviet policy was to support socialist governments and movements worldwide. While more of a hardliner than Khrushchev, he was by no means another Stalin. While supporting communist movements in central America and Afghanistan, he moved to negotiate several arms control agreements with the west. The domestic economy moved into a period of stagnation during his term. He died on Nov. 10, 1982 and was replaced by Yuri Andropov.

Andropov was an ex KGB director, he intensified the internal struggle against dissidents and was again increasing the arms race with the west. He died on Feb. 9, 1984. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko who died March 10, 1985

It should be noted that the last few leaders were old and in ill health when they came into office. These men were all early leaders of the Communist party and found it difficult to lead reforms. It seemed that most who came after Stalin hoped to lessen tensions with the west, but after a lifetime of devout communism, it was difficult task. Most drank heavily and often were heavy smokers. This may have been a result of a life of uncertainty and danger that may have been hard to overcome. There may be a  similar situation with many in the western defense and intelligence communities who grew up in a era of the cold war and cannot put it behind them.

Chernenko was replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev on March 11, 1985, he was 54 years old, the first leader born after the revolution in 1917. He had given speeches in the Kremlin advocating reform and now had a chance to try to bring about those reforms.


This was originally publishes 1 /16/17 part 3 of 7

PART4

REAGAN GORBACHEV YEARS

Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, he immediately began a refurbishing of the U.S. Military. Part of his plan was a missile defense system that was a cause for concern in the USSR. The Soviets had put their resources after WW2, first into a large number of armored vehicles on the borders of western Europe, then shifted to mobile nuclear missiles and a large investment in intercontinental ballistic missiles. The introduction of a missile defense system could make much of their investment obsolete.

Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, he was the first Soviet leader born after the revolution, he was 54 years old and had been in favor of reform for some time. He was appointed by the Politburo, so we can assume there were others who favored reform, and of course there were others who were suspicious of any changes. He introduced the policy of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). According to Gorbachev, perestroika was the "conference of development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity".

The stagnation of the Russian economy brought about by top down control, regulation and little incentive for creativity and hard work was a serious problem. The rate of alcoholism was severe and the famous Russian quote summed it up," we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." The black market thrived for goods that were not produced by the government industry. While still a believer in socialism, Gorbachev set in motion a series of events that led to a desire for independence by most of the eastern European republics. This was started in Poland with the "Solidarity" movement in 1980, it was a series of non-violent strikes and other protests that eventually led to semi-free elections in 1989. While Gorbachev introduced the possibility of free elections and self government, he believed that they would continue as communist countries. While these reforms were moving forward Gorbachev made overtures to all the major western leaders and suspended the introduction of the soviets newest intermediate missiles. In November of  1985 he met Ronald Reagan in Geneva, and while no agreements were made they came away in a very friendly atmosphere.

In January 1986 Gorbachev proposed the elimination of all intermediate range missiles in Europe and also the possibility of the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2000. He also began the process of  withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. On October 11 1986, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in principle to eliminate INF, "intermediate range nuclear forces" missiles in Europe and limit them to 100  worldwide. They also agreed to eliminate Nuclear weapons by 1996. These overtures were all made by Gorbachev and found a willing partner in Reagan. In November 24,  1987 they signed the INF treaty in Geneva. In 1988 Gorbachev completed the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In 1989 he abandoned the "Brezhnev Doctrine" and allowed elections in the former Warsaw pact countries. By 1991 all of the former soviet bloc countries had become independent. While there was an attempted coup in 1991 and much uncertainty in the future, this was an amazing accomplishment. On December 25,1991 Gorbachev resigned and the next day the flag of the Soviet Union was replace with the flag of the Russian Federation. On Dec. 27, 1991 Boris Yeltsin replaced Mikhail Gorbachev.

While Gorbachev had hoped to keep the union of the states intact, things spiraled out of control once freedom became an option. Those days in the Soviet Union will go down as a pivotal time in the 20th century, alongside WW1,WW2, and the great depression. To unwind the Soviet Union without a large scale civil war was an amazing accomplishment.

originally published 1/22/17 part 4 of 7

PART5

COMMUNIST EXPERIMENT ENDS

MAJOR POLICY ERROR BY THE WEST

Boris Yeltsin was elected president of the Russian Soviet Federation Socialist Republic on June 12, 1991. With the resignation of Gorbachev he became the first elected president of the Russian Federation on Dec. 25th, 1991. One must take note that Yeltsin was the first elected president in the history of Russia. Democracy, free markets, and self government  had not existed at any time in their history. This was a population of much ethnic, cultural, political, and religious diversity. Yeltsin set out to embrace free market capitalism in a country with no experience and very little exposure to these ideas. It is a marvel that such a transition began in such a peaceful manner. There were still communists and many who would have preferred the old system. There was still great distrust of the west and capitalism. Ronald Reagan and the U.S. had the highest approval of the Russian people in history. Some in this country believed it was a plan to lull the U.S and its allies into complacency. Reagan's motto was, " Trust but verify", this attitude was acceptable to the Russians.

Yeltsin began by privatizing all government industry, this was accomplished by giving citizens vouchers for 10,000 rubles that could be transferred into shares of stock. While this was an admirable idea, many of the Russian people did not value these options and sold them to the more sophisticated members of their society. These were primarily former government officials and communist party members. This created the era of the oligarchs, who became very rich and powerful in a very short time. Yeltsin also urged cooperation with many economists from the U.S. and other western countries to advise them on how to move to a capitalist system.  I personally remember this time as a time of great hope of  peace and the welcoming of Russia into the community of nations. This was desired by many in Russia and the rest of the world. It was not to be a smooth transition, as one could imagine, but it was a movement that was now irreversible, at least as far as returning to communism. Boris Yeltsin was re-elected in 1996. These were times were we enjoyed the best relations with Russian and the west since 1917.

As the Soviet Union was being replaced by independence of the former Warsaw Pact countries and Russia, many negotiations were being engaged in to create a stable transition. The Russian Federation and NATO agreed that the unified Germany could be a member of NATO, but that all of the former Warsaw Pact countries would be independent entities. These agreements have been verified by former west German diplomats and former negotiators for the United States. Russia still had a memory of the fact that their survival was secured in the wars with Napoleon, WW1 and WW2 by the large distances from their possible enemies. Their large terrain was similar to our security of the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. This agreement was broken on July 8, 1997 when NATO agreed to the inclusion of Hungary, the Check Republic and Poland into NATO. This was accomplished in 1999. In 2004 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were also included.  According to George F. Kennan, an American diplomat and an advocate of the Soviet Era containment policy, this decision "may be expected to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking". This decision was criticized by many military, political and academic leaders as a " policy error of historic proportions." It seemed to be more than a policy error, but an intentional attempt to abort the democratization of Russia. This could be compared to Stalin's refusal to abide by his commitments at the end of WW2.

This attempt to encircle the Russian Federation at a time of its vulnerability brought out the worst fears of the Russians. It would be no different than Mexico and Canada joining the former Warsaw Pact. This was the beginning of the new distrust between Russia and the United States and its allies.


originally published 1/26/17 part 5 of 7

Russia U.S. relations, Post WW2, Parts 1-2.

 HOW WE CAME TO THE BRINK OF WW3

REEVALUATION BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

The relationship between Russia and the United States is an extension of the deals made after WW2 between the United States, Great Britain and The Soviet Union. These decisions were made at a series of conferences held and decisions made by Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.

The first was the Cairo Conference, Nov. 22 to 26 1943, followed closely by the Tehran conference held at the Soviet embassy in Iran. These early conferences dealt with the plan to win the war in Europe. From the record it is evident that Stalin was the dominate figure in these talks. While it was agreed to coordinate their attacks on Germany, Stalin was already making good on taking advantage of a crisis. Stalin already in 1943 won agreement on the support for the communist partisans in Yugoslavia and the USSR moving the border of eastern Poland in their favor. While Churchill would have liked to resist these decisions, he was in the weakest position, Stalin already had troops in much of eastern Europe, the U.S. was the main producer of war equipment which all were dependent, Britain was hanging on for their survival.

The conferences held in Yalta in Crimea Feb 4 to 11,1945 had mostly to do with the partition of Germany and the transition of Europe from war to peace. It also guaranteed the self determination of the countries of eastern Europe, this included Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria and other countries already occupied by the Soviet Union and the allies. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were strongly criticized for these arrangements, many knowing that Stalin would not hold up his side of the bargain.  Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. He explained that "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man," and reasoned, "I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, 'noblesse oblige,' he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace" One must take note in the book the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandar Solzhenitsyn , he made mention that when Eleanor Roosevelt visited the Soviet Union in 1957, she mentioned the improvements in education, medical care and sanitation, but neglected to discuss that some of worst atrocities in human history had been perpetrated. Whether she knew about this or not is not clear, but the Roosevelt's had an affinity for Socialism and at the time the Soviet Union was the idol of many advocates of this form of government.

The final conference was held in Potsdam, occupied Germany, July 17 to Aug. 2 1945. This was attended by Stalin, Truman, and Atlee for Great Britain. This finalized the partition of Germany and Austria, a share given to France that was to be taken out of the U.S. and British partitions. This also decided the division of Vietnam at the 16th parallel and granted some Japanese Islands to the Soviet Union even though they didn't participate in war with Japan. Truman tried to take a tougher stance, but the Soviet Union occupied these countries with a very large experienced army. It was not long until Stalin installed Communist governments in all these countries. There were some, including George Patton, who advocated the invasion of the Soviet Union and the freeing of these countries, while it was not a viable plan while Roosevelt was president, Truman, after acquiring the Atomic bomb,  could have used it as leverage to negotiate freedom and free elections in eastern Europe. Most everyone had their fill of war and it was not possible to win support for such a plan. The cold war had begun. Anti-Communist fear and resistance, with good cause, became the policy of the U.S and the democratic countries of the west.

This was originally published 1/9/17. It is the first of 7 parts.

PART 2

Immediately following WW2 the chess game of pushing the advantage between the expansion of Communism and self government began.  The Soviet Union under Stalin was relentless in probing for opportunities to advance the ideology of global communism. In 1946 a civil war in Greece between Communist and royalist factions began. This was followed by the Chinese communist revolution in the same year, this civil war lasted until 1949 when 600,000 Chinese Nationalist troops and 2 million civilians fled to Taiwan. An estimated 10,000,000 died in this conflict and the dispute with Taiwan is still ongoing.

 After the defeat of Japan, Korea above the 38th parallel and Vietnam above the 16th parallel were to be administered by China. When the Civil war in China came to an end, they almost immediately invaded South Korea on June 25th 1950, this war lasted until July 27, 1953. 21 UN countries participated, 88% of the troops were from the U.S. U.S. air power was the determining factor. The North Koreans were supported by China and the USSR. Many of the N. Korean aircraft were piloted by Russian airmen. Gen. Douglas MacArthur proposed using Nuclear weapons to take on the Chinese, that idea was rejected by Truman. This dispute is still ongoing.

 At the same time pressure was brought against South Vietnam which was still a French colony, this continued until 1954 when the French pulled out. It was not long before the U.S. began giving aid to the South Vietnam and escalated into the Vietnam war in which 50,000 U.S. troops were killed, the U.S. eventually pulled out and Vietnam fell to the communists.

In Europe it was much of the same, in 1948 the USSR blockaded West Berlin and the allies commenced with the Berlin airlift to supply allied areas of Berlin. East Germany put up a fence to keep the population from fleeing to the west and eventually built the Berlin Wall, many were shot while trying to flee  communist rule. Stalin proclaimed that war with the U.S. was inevitable. The USSR tested its first atomic bomb on Aug. 29, 1949. The U.S. developed a plan for the defense of Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. It was called "Operation Dropshot", and called for the saturation of the Soviet Union with Atomic bombs and a large ground invasion.

The USSR now controlled the countries of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and East Germany. Yugoslavia was an independent communist state under Tito. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were ceded to the USSR by the allies in 1940. This became know as the "Warsaw Pact". It must be noted that the USSR suffered 40,000,000 deaths in WW2, far more than any of the other combatants. WW2  put most of their major cities in ruins, it could be understood that they were obsessed with a buffer zone for their security.

It was a tense time with civil defense drills in the U.S. and western Europe with instructions in schools to protect ones self in the event of Nuclear War. Many believed that a third world war was now imminent. To counter the threat from the soviet block, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom agreed to cooperate in their mutual defense with the treaty of Brussels in 1948. This was followed with the formation of the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" on April 4, 1949. It consisted of the 5 nations of the treaty of Brussels plus, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, a total of 12 nations.  The forming of NATO and the support of the United States is probably what avoided the conflict. That and the death of Stalin in 1953.

Stalin was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev, who made many attempts at reform, he was a bit of a colorful character who is famous for his many typical Russian quotations, he was still a die hard communist who pursued the idea of global Communism, but lifted the dismal dark burden from the Russian people. His quote about Stalin is telling.

"Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his [own] viewpoint, and the correctness of his [own] position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation." — Nikita Khrushchev

Originally published 1/12/17, Part 2 of 7  Parts 3-7 to follow

Sympathy for Zelensky.

 DESPERATION LEADS TO BAD DECISIONS

HE NEEDS TO MAKE A SERIOUS DECISION SOON

Watching the White House press conference and then Zelensky's interview with Bret Baier made it clear that Zelensky is under extreme stress. That is completely understandable, if you consider he is in a no win situation on many fronts.

What many don't understand about Friday's disaster is that Macron and Starmer came to Washington earlier in week to ask for U.S. backup if they put troops into Ukraine. Trump was very diplomatic, but said NO. It was clear that Trump was not going to link back-up support to the mineral deal. Zelensky came anyway with the plan to trade the mineral deal for support, it was discussed in private and Trump said NO. Then in front of the press, Zelensky thought it would be a good idea to take his plea to the American people on live television. He was cautioned before the press conference to not make it a public plea, but to behave like his counterparts earlier in the week to be diplomatic and accept the decision. The rest is history.

Zelensky for his own good and for the good of Ukraine, should consider moving on, either having elections or let parliament take over to conclude this Ukraine tragedy. It is clear that he cannot accept that this is not going to end as he would hope.

Trump rightfully is unwilling to commit to pledging U.S. military intervention in Ukraine in any circumstances, especially when linked to third parties possible orchestrating that need. 

Zelensky has dangerous factions all around him, if he should accept the loss of territory, his Bandera military will likely take him out. If he does not protect the interests of the UK and France he may have the same fate.

It would be interesting to know how Zelensky came to be the President of Ukraine. He campaigned against the U.S. backed Poroshenko on making peace with Russia. He was not the candidate of the U.S. CIA and state department, but was he the candidate of MI6 and other EU countries? Hopefully he will live long enough to write his memoirs. 

While many want to believe that this conflict is a stalemate and Russia cannot win. I would suspect Putin still considers that NATO may enter this conflict. It is by design that this conflict is ongoing 800 miles from the western border, the same miles that were too much for Napoleon and Hitler. Ukraine has been the buffer that has saved Russia in the past and they will go all out to preserve that buffer in the future. Russia will not accept NATO in Ukraine or EU troops in Ukraine, that is a reality that many still do not understand. Russia will not be defeated, except by all out nuclear war.

At present, there is no Ukraine peace deal, only the agreement to negotiate peace. It is clear that Zelensky does not want to negotiate any peace that will cause the loss of teritrity. The UK and France want to protect their neo-colonial hopes in Ukraine. The UK has a 100 year agreement and France has some sort of agreement, all have to do with their economic future, after the war.

I suspect that Trump wanted to see how many times Zelensky would agree to sell the same rights in an effort to lock in support.

So, it looks like any peace deal is on life-support. Russia and Trump are going to continue to negotiate many things, other than Ukraine. At present, the Ukraine crisis may very well no longer be part of those negotiations. It also seems impossible for the EU, UK or Zelinsky to even begin negotiations with Russia. That leaves only one option, and that is work with Trump on a negotiated settlement or continue the war that will likely be unconditional surrender by Ukraine in the future. 

So, Putin's proposal, before this war started, about a neutral, non aligned Ukraine was blown off by Biden and west and in effect told Putin to F+++ off, "he cannot tell them they cannot move NATO to the Russian border". I wonder, if only the Ukrainian people would have the option to vote on that idea, then, and in April 2022 in Turkey.

Trump is clear that he is not going to prolong the death and destruction by continuing military aid to Ukraine. There could be aid in the effort to sustain Ukraine during peace negotiations.

Zelensky, the UK and France and their "coalition of the willing" may want to fight on without the U.S., but it is unlikely they will pull the trigger without the U.S. being the major combatant. I would expect that without U.S. back-up they will not put troops in Ukraine. This resolution of back-up is just another NATO article 5 by another name.  

No one, of course, seems to consider Russia's view, EU peacekeepers in Ukraine are in fact, a de facto NATO army, it was a large part of the cause of this war and it will not be acceptable now.

The western press keeps up the narrative that Russia is about to collapse any day and they must keep up the war and in the same breath they claim Russia wants to move their borders to the Atlantic ocean, which is it.

Trump: No promise of back-up in Ukraine

 RUSSIA U.S. DEAL MOVING FORWARD

EU AND UKRAINE BETTER START TALKING TO PUTIN

Yesterday's meeting in Washington with Keir Starmer was clear, no U.S. troops in Ukraine and no U.S. backup for European troops in Ukraine. That indicates that Trump intends to pursue normalized relations with Russia and if the EU wants to prolong the war, they are on their own. It is unlikely that the EU has the wherewithal or the resolve to go to war with Russia and Trump is leary of getting baited into sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. 

Starmer says the U.K. is all in for sending U.K. troops and planes to Ukraine, we will see, with a combined military of less than 80,000, they would last about 3 weeks in Ukraine. It is clear, the U.S. is out of the Ukraine project and without the U.S. it is a dead project. 

Zelensky comes today to sign the so called mineral rights deal, without any security guarantees from Washington. Trump considers it payment for former support, not future support.

Geologists have been rumored to believe the mineral wealth of Ukraine is much exaggerated and may have been just Zelinsky's so much bait to encourage the continued support of the west.

Putin also scoffed at Ukraine's mineral claims, and stated that Russia really did have all those minerals and would be willing to sell the west as much as they want.

It seems there is some distast with buying resources, rather than owning or controlling them. The mideast nations have always been willing to sell THEIR resources at market prices without discrimination, yet we always hear about controlling those resources.

The world is at a crossroads, is it going to be WW3 or a new era of mutual respect, cooperation and co-existance, it should be an easy choice.

West lines up for minerals of Ukraine.

 U.S. IS SECOND TO THE UK'S 100 YEAR DEAL

HAS THIS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT RESOURCES?

Tomorrow, Zelinsky of Ukraine is expected to come to Washington and sign a mineral rights deal worth 50% of all future income from mineral extraction. It is interesting that today, U.K.'s Keir Starmer is coming to Washington, will they talk about the U.K.'s 100 year deal with Ukraine that was signed on Jan. 16, 2025, 4 days before the Trump inauguration? A 100 year deal sounds a lot like colonial deals of the past, obviously the U.K. is hoping to bring back it's past.

It is rumored that Zelensky started talking about such deals with Biden and Trump as early as september 2024. Did the U.K. hope to get to make its deal before Trump could have time to consummate a deal?

Several other countries have also made so called "Security Agreements " with Ukraine, France for one. Did Trump and Macron also talk about such deals earlier in the week?

One must wonder how such deals can be guaranteed, when the war is ongoing and no one knows exactly what will be left of Ukraine. Will negotiations with Russia include honoring these deals, a sort of sharing of the spoils of what is left of Ukraine? Is that why Europe wants to be in on negotiations?

A neutral Ukraine would have had the opportunity to sell these minerals for the benefit of its people, but that is now a horse out of the barn.

One must wonder, what is the strategy of Trump? He has really exposed what is going on, by demanding this public deal.

So, now as it it is clear that the war is coming to an end, will Russia make a deal with the west to share the resources, in exchange for the facade of a sovereign Ukraine.  Many talk about past deals for, "peace in our time". Today it may be more like "a PIECE in our time".

Mideast, quiet but smoldering.

 EGYPT AMASSES TROOPS IN SINAI, IRAN ON HIGH ALERT

STILL EXPECTED ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN

So far the ceasefire in Gaza is still holding, but Netanyahu has not held to his part of the bargain on prisoner release. He claims that Hamas is using the hostage releases for political gain, they surely are, but what can be expected, the main thing is that hostages are being released.  It seems Hamas has better PR people than Israel, they have been able to manage to turn this mess into a political victory, if not a military one. 

It seems the Trump Gaza plan is dead. Jordan agreed to take 2000 seriously ill or injured children from Gaza and that is likely the end of it. Egypt has refused to even meet to discuss this plan, but is amassing troops in the Sinai in case Israel decides to reopen the Gaza bombing to force refugees into Egypt. Many believe Netanyahu is itching to end the ceasefire and continue the bombing in Gaza, but is being restrained by Trump while he hopes to make progress in Ukraine. An end to the Ukraine war could lead to some cooperation by Russia in solving these mideast problems.

Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries are interested in rebuilding Gaza, but some believe that rebuilding is not what Israel wants. 

Then there is Turkey, keeping low key, but no friend of Israel, Israeli expansion into Syria will not be tolerated and Turkey has a very well equipped and well trained military.

It is no secret that Netanyahu wants to bomb Iran and would like U.S. assistance, again that would lead to high oil prices, possible assistance to Iran from Russia and the possibility that a retaliation from Iran could essentially disable Israel permanently. An attack is not a sure thing, and the consequences are far more dangerous than the temporary result. The decades old argument of stopping Iran's nuclear program is again a typical red herring, If Iran wanted Nuclear weapons, they would have had them years ago. If they decide to build nuclear weapons, they will get it done one way or another.

While quiet, no resolution in sight and smoldering fires everywhere could be ignited into a conflagration on many fronts.

Do we, or don't we, have the GOLD?

 WILL  AN AUDIT OF U.S. GOLD ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

NO REAL AUDIT SINCE WW2

Many have been trying to have an actual audit of U.S. gold holdings for decades, other than a 1970's photo op, there has not been any such accounting. The U.S. is supposed to have over 8100 metric tons of gold. This stockpile grew enormously during WW2 as payments for war supplies from allies came into the U.S. treasury. It is stored at Fort Knox, the Federal reserve bank in New York and several other locations. It is time to have a full accounting, that is for sure.

With price of gold now reaching $2950, gold is becoming a subject that is daily in the news, at least in the alternative media. Central banks, particularly in Asia have been buying gold at a increasing pace. BRICS counties are all increasing their stockpile of gold, many believe anticipating a gold backed currency.

The new Treasury secretary made a statement about monetizing U.S. assets. This statement has created speculation about if the U.S. going to sell gold, real estate or other assets of the United States government in an attempt to balance the budget and pay down debt. If gold is actually in possession and repriced at current levels it would amount to $800 billion, not enough to balance the budget or pay debt and it would be a one time event.

Then there is the speculation about the massive purchases of gold flowing from London to the Comex in New York and the taking of physical possession of gold. So far, no one is sure who is buying all this gold. some believe it is the U.S. government in an attempt to stabilize the U.S. dollar.

The dollar is under assault due to the massive deficits and the huge debt that this government has incurred. Some believe that only some sort of gold revaluation or dollar devaluation will have a positive effect on the dollar. 

The U.S. government devalued the dollar in 1933 by revaluing gold from $20 an oz. to $35. an ounce. This was done after demanding the citizens turn over their gold in exchange for a $20 paper bill. The wealthy and wise kept their gold and the poor and unsophisticated become instantly poorer. It was again devalued in 1971 to $42. an ounce. Since then, the printing presses have been running hot with no connection to any gold reserves, resulting in inflation and a daily drop in purchasing power of the dollar.

Some think that the government may again value the gold at the market price of $2950 an ounce. The reality is this will not solve the problem, but a revaluation at a much higher price like $40,000 an ounce could wipe out the national debt and allow those debt holders to be repaid in gold at that revaluation. 

While some may call that a fancy default, which it would be, anything is possible when a debt crisis is just around the corner.

Betraying or saving Ukraine?

 WILL CONTINUING THIS WAR BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF UKRAINE?

MORE DEAD YOUNG MEN AND MORE LOSS OF TERRITORY

We see all those who want to continue this Ukraine war and yet they are not clear on  their objective. The truth is this NATO expansion was planned in the U.S. and the European partners went along. Somehow Ukraine was convinced that this was a workable idea and somehow they would benefit, they were grossly misled. The truth is, there was never a plan for Ukraine to prevail, they were just used to damage Russia. The hope was to destroy the economy of Russia, cause division in Russia and cause the overthrow of the Putin regime. Ukraine was a means to that end and the death of a million young men and destruction of the country was just colleterial damage in the big picture.

All objective observers knew that Russia would never allow NATO missiles on their border, including the architects of this mess in Washington.

Now that it has all gone terribly wrong, Russia was not weak, Russia was able to side step the sanctions and was able to outproduce the west in munitions. The population of Russia did not revolt, but soon understood the true goal of the west.

So now 3 years later, the war goes on, Russia moves west every day, and we still hear that Russia is about to collapse any day. That revolt in Russia is imminent, a true window into the insanity of these collaborators.

This Ukraine project has resulted in the deindustrialization of Europe, likely the end of NATO as it presently exists, an alliance between  Russia and China, that will not be easily weakened, and the rapid moving to an alternative global economic system. Yet the narrative is to stay the course, saving face of the authors of this catastrophe, is better than considering the lives and future of Ukrainians and Ukraine.

Ukraine does not owe the U.S. anything, actually Ukraine should be suing the entire west for the fraud it has commited in this fiasco. 

We will now hear that Ukraine was lost due to Donald Trump, the reality is, this fiasco was lost over ten years ago, when this conflict started and they still want it to continue.  Ending it now is in the best interest of Ukraine, but that is irrelevant in their big picture.

Reality, "You cant always get what you want".

 TIME TO CHOOSE THE POSSIBLE OVER DESIRES

THERE IS GOING TO BE PAIN

It is remarkable how much of the western world is unwilling to acknowledge that there are limitations on its ability to have the kind of world it would like. We see huge debt and spending that is unsustainable, yet unwilling to acknowledge that hard decisions need to be made. I am sure if you have been around long enough, you have witnessed a family member or friend that has gone down the road of unrealistic spending and irresponsible behaviour that often ends in tragedy. Sometimes accompanied by substance abuse and sometimes just an unwillingness to accept the realities of life. You cannot always get what you want.

Today we see this on a national scale, Government funded programs and jobs cannot become the largest single part of an economy. Government is an expense, one that has its place, but it needs to be a much smaller part of the economy. It produces nothing, just attempt to redistribute the wealth and when that no longer becomes possible, it just takes on more debt, a recipe for disaster. No one can do that in their personal life and neither can any government, It is reality.

We see Europe and many in this government here who would like to see Ukraine defeat and push Russia back to their 1991 borders and some much further. The idea of NATO expansion began in the 1990 's and was predicted by many as a disaster waiting to happen. Now it has happened, and many insist that they must stay the course at any cost of wealth and lives. Again, reality is they cannot prevail and to keep the fight going will just cost many more lives and possibly economic distress by those who refuse to accept the reality. While things may be bad, they can get a lot worse, much worse than anyone should want to contemplate. Again, you cant always get what you want.

There is a prayer that is often repeated by counselors to people with addiction problems or those who are unwilling to face reality.

God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. I suspect that the wisdom part is the most important.

Ukraine and Europe, not ready to end war.

 STILL HOPING TO SAVE FACE AND WIN

PROSPECTS FOR BOTH FUTURES DIM

It is clear that both Ukraine and the EU, and of course most of all the UK, are not ready for peace in Ukraine. They still envision a ceasefire or frozen conflict were it will be used as an opportunity to rearm and retrain Ukraines youth to fight some more. They are not ready, but as the talks with the U.S. go on and a move by the U.S. to normalize relations with Russia continue, the future for Ukraine and Europe will all be downhill.

Many claim that only Trump can end this war and that is true, not because of his brilliance as a negotiator, but because he still has a window of credibility as an honest broker in dealings with Russia.  All of the present European leaders have torched their credibility with their past behaviour of duplicity and outright lies. He has opportunity, until he is viewed otherwise by the sophisticated and leary Putin and Lavrov.

So, while the talks with the U.S. go on,  we will see changes in leadership all across Europe, more economic decline and social unrest. Ukraine will be smaller day by day and will soon become politically chaotic. Zelinsky's days are now numbered, declining support and dismal results on the battlefield will just be too much. It will either be elections or a violent change of leadership.

Trump's attempt to force a quick end to this dispute is now unlikely as more death and destruction, economic crisis and political upheaval may be necessary to convince the rest that it is time to give it up.

Then there are those in the U.S. who hope to embrace Russia in a hope of separating them from China and derailing the movement of the BRICS economic union. If that should be successful, then they could have another go a Russia in the future. They are still delusional and immature in their assessment of the direction of world events. The world is wise to game and it is over.

The only hope is mutual respect, cooperation and co-existance, any other approach will end in dire consequences for all.

THE COMING COLLAPSE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

THE COMING COLLAPSE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

THE QUESTION IS NOT IF, BUT WHEN? 

 

Watching the news we see economic crises worldwide. While we are not currently in a major downturn, we have been sort of treading water for the last 8 years. The  underlying problems with most economies, particularly western Europe and the United States, have not improved. In fact, the amount of debt and the future ability to deal with a downturn is a lot more unstable than before. The amount of debt held by Western countries, businesses and individuals, has actually increased since 2007. This election year we hear from some who believe if we just raise taxes on the wealthy all will be well. Others contend that all will be well if we can just instill confidence that a solution is near. Sorry. All will not be well. Taxes would have to be doubled in most cases, which will cause an economic collapse, or government spending would have to be cut in half, which will also cause a collapse.

Of course the problem is that there has been an accumulation of extraordinary debt by all governments, corporations, and individuals. There is not a precedent for this situation in human history. While the housing bubble was the symptom that was burst, when gas rose to $4.00 a gallon, in the US the massive debts held by everyone was the real problem. Debts of individuals can be traced to central banks that have not been willing to clear excess debts since the early 1980’s. Instead, they have encouraged and enabled individuals to borrow beyond their means to repay. We now see a classic debt collapse scenario where people are having a hard time servicing the debt they have and banks are raising standards to stop losses...with the economy stagnating until the debts are reduced to normal levels. This may take decades rather than years. 　

A far bigger problem is the debt of governments, particularly in Western Europe and the US. These debts are a direct result of massive spending and the whole idea of democratic socialism where votes were bought by promising unsustainable benefits...to individuals, spending on projects, surveys, studies, ad nauseum... to the well connected. When fulfilling these promises could not be sustained by raising taxes they just borrowed the money to be consumed. The spending on projects, etc. is more easily addressed by just saying "NO"...BUT the spending on benefits is much more difficult to address. The real culprit in all this is that socialism has been a dismal failure whenever it has been tried. I should qualify that by distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary socialism.

Voluntary socialism is self limiting. An example is fire insurance. If the incidence of loss becomes excessive, premiums go up and some people may refuse to buy insurance. If losses become excessive insurance companies may refuse to enter that market. There are natural limits for both parties.

The first instance of collectivist failure was recorded in the New Testament. The early Christians, thinking that the end was near, sold there possessions, dined together and shared with each other. It was not long until Paul, hearing complaints from the responsible members of the community, wrote to them saying, “He who does not work shall not eat.” Human nature and the voluntary basis of this experiment was a natural remedy.

Another example was the Puritans who landed in Plymouth in 1620. They formed the, "Mayflower Compact," an agreement to share all property and work in common. After 3 years of this experiment, they were barely able to survive. The Puritan's endeavor had been financed by investors in Europe who hoped they would reap a profit by the Puritans repaying their debts with furs and other goods. After 3 years of no return, investors refused to send any more support and the idea was scrapped. The Puritans then distributed land to each family and they were on their own - the result was the beginning of prosperity for all.  It was chronicled by William Bradford that while the number of people who were either too weak or incapable of work grew, and the young and motivated were increasingly unhappy with the communal arrangement, many who formally were unable to add much to the community instantly became more productive when they were able to keep the fruits of their labor.

Remember the 1960’s  communes, where a few self motivated people bought a ranch and lived off the land? It was not long until they were supporting a larger and larger number of new disciples, who agreed it was wonderful, except for the motivation part. Again it ended in a natural turn of events and human nature.

Now to involuntary socialism. Of course the greatest example has to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This experiment was immediate total government control that in the end was a dramatic failure. It may take Russia several generations to recover from the debacle. While touted by Socialists as the wonderful system of the future, (including Eleanor Roosevelt who visited the country many times in the 1930s when the worst atrocities were being committed), Solzhenitsyn and others saw and reported the true nature of the experiment. It's interesting to note that from the revolution in the USSR in 1917 to its collapse in 1989 was 72 years. If we take 1935 as the "embrace of socialism" in western Europe and the US, we end up at 2007. Does it take roughly this long for the failures of socialism to become unsustainable? While we have not had total control by the governments of western Europe or the US, we have been progressing in that direction for decades...hence the term progressivism. It has been a slow incremental movement that has taken control of most industries through regulation and has encouraged dependency by promising a safety net to those displaced by their policies. The part of the private sector that has not been effectively controlled by the government is the food and energy sector. They are in the process of taking over the energy sector and when they can control food they will have complete control of the economy and the people. Remember the winners of socialist economies are the ruling class who often live well off on what they skim off of the redistribution schemes. Even in the Soviet Union they lived well in their dachaus and had access to  travel and benefits that could only be dreamed of by the rest of the population.

While it all appears wonderful in theory, Unchangeable Human Nature has not been taken into account. Humans will help each other to some extent, but most will not jeopardize their or their families well-being for others. On a voluntary basis, many are willing to help those in need, in danger, etc. but as soon as it becomes involuntary, there will be resistance. This is just the nature of human survival instincts. While it may not measure up to the expectations of the ideologues of socialism, it is probably superior to all other organisms on earth. The Soviet experiment ended when there were no longer any incentives left. The Russians who have weathered one form of dictatorship for their whole existence were noted to remark to each other, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." In the end the only prospering part of the economy was the black market and flea markets.

So what has happened in every case of involuntary socialism?  Those who believe they are taxed too much will resist by finding ways to pay less; those who believe they are restricted in some way will find ways around the restrictions. Too much tax will usually create less revenue, etc. At first this is accepted or minimally enforced, but as the deficits grow, enforcement must increase and we see a cycle of increased enforcement, then less activity, then less revenue and if left to follow a linear path to forced labor and slavery.

In the U.S. there was once a work ethic and pride of self reliance - many would not accept charity -but after decades of increasing regulation and taxation it seems all restraint has fallen off and everyone will take and pursue more benefits, even if liquidating assets and claiming poverty is necessary. The dam has broken. The tipping point has been reached. It will not likely be restored by government action, or by acts of Congress; the same applies to Western Europe.

So what is the solution? At this point there is no easy solution. All solutions will require much pain and suffering. It may be limited by economic suffering and the necessary austerity to liquidate the debt and begin a new start with liberty and self reliance the foundation...OR...it may be that more enforcement will be needed until we return to feudal type society where basic necessities will be provided to the productive and compliant and those that do not conform will be eliminated from society by the powers that be. This is the question that will be answered when the coming collapse reaches its fulfillment.

originally published 2/11/2016

update 9/1/22   We are about to see the fulfillment of this narrative, possibly within months in Western Europe and then on to the U.S.

update 3/10/2023  We see the new budget is increased by 1 Trillion dollars. Debt of over 31 Trillion. Inflation destroying buying power. It is all unsustainable. 

update 11/16/2023, all the problems are now more severe, $34 trillion debt, $2 trillion deficit. Bond market in trouble. Any attempts to fiscal responsibility labeled extreme. 

update 5/24/2024, U.S. now incurring debt at the rate of $1 trillion every 100 days. Gold $2450 oz. While all seems well, it is all unsustainable, Economic crisis on the horizon.

Update 2/19/2025. U.S. debt nears $37 trillion. Gold $2940. Trump and DOGE attempt to reform spending and fraud in budget. Many would rather go down with the ship than change this unsustainable course.

Eu leaders plan, Peacekeepers, NATO with another name.

 IT IS CLEAR WHY EUROPE IS NOT AT THE TABLE

EVERY PLAN CONTINGENT ON U.S. BACKUP

Yesterday the European leaders had a meeting in Paris to talk about Ukraine. It is clear that they are not ready to face the reality, that they cannot prevail in Ukraine. That NATO expansion into Ukraine is not going to happen, that Ukraine is not going to recover its lost territory, that Russia is not going to accept 150,000 European military personnel in Ukraine, even if they are labeled peacekeepers.  The fact is that it is unlikely that Europe could muster and maintain 150,000 personnel to act as peacekeepers for the next several decades.

Consider that the U.S. is spending 15% of its budget on defense spending, and has created an economic crisis of it own for doing so,when most of European NATO has been spending less than 2%. Some are contemplating upping it to 3 %, it would probably take them a decade to do so. The EU has been proud of their 30 hr work weeks, and months of paid leave, something that most Americans do not have. When Trump states that they have been taking advantage of the United States, it is indeed true. This is enough reason why they are not present in the peace negotiations, that and the fact that they really don't want peace without victory, victory that they cannot achieve without U.S. military power. 

Every proposed plan by them in Paris was contingent on U.S. back up. They keep voicing the narrative that Putin, or Russia, the fact is, it is all one and the same, wants to invade all of Europe, a weak narrative at best. Why would Russia want to spend resources to rule over a failing Europe that has commited economic and political suicide and has adopted many of the socialist policies that led to the end of the Soviet Union. The reality is that Russia and its standard of living has improved greatly under the administration of Putin, he is genuinely highly regarded by the majority of Russia's citizens. I expect he has higher approval rating than any of the EU leadership.

Russia has no need of anything that western Europe has, it has vast territory, massive resources, and has prospered and has a bright future. Controlling European territory would be a drain and a pain to the future of Russia. What it wants is to control its own future and preserve it resources for the benefit of Russia. 

While they deny it, the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia and the constant attempts to cause internal division and regime change in Russia by foreign powers is the root of this crisis, not the hope of Russia ruling Europe. Decades of the narrative of a Russia threat by the combined West has created the present crisis and made Russia into the enemy they hoped for, and now they see no way out of the predicament they created.

After 17 years, Change of direction in Munich.

 UKRAINE WAR ENDING, JUST A MATTER OF HOW

2008 MUNICH MEETING BEGAN THE UKRAINE PROJECT

While most of the elite leaders at the Munich conference were dismayed at the open notice of change of direction in U. S. foreign policy, the reality is that a change is required concerning the Ukraine conflict. 

As predicted by many, Ukraine cannot prevail in this conflict, the choices are to save as much as possible of Ukraine or go to all out war with Russia. Only with a leadership of U.S. military might would such an enterprise hope to be successful and the consequences are not worth the risk to the global wellbeing. The Ukraine conflict is going to end and it will be a defeat for Ukraine and the west. The question is, can Ukraine be preserved a as viable country in the future or just a barren area between east and west.

While we see the Uk and some others talk of NATO to the rescue, It is not evident that they have the capability or the will to mass troops and take on Russia. The EU members are suffering greatly from this conflict, economically and politically, and there is no end in sight with this conflict continuing.

The U.S., with 750 foreign military bases a $36 Trillion debt and annual deficits making up over 25 % of current budgets needs to make massive changes at home rather take on more war. The world is now at a pivotal crossroads.

So,  it seems there is meeting planned between Russia and U.S. in Saudi Arabia. The preparations are beginning tomorrow with U.S. and Russian delegates preparing for a meeting between Trump and Putin.

Europe and Ukraine are outraged that they will not be included, but this meeting is going to be about much more than Ukraine. There are indications that both sides agree that a new view of the existing global order is necessary to avoid future conflict. While in the early stages, it is indicated that this new reality will include China at some time in the future. It includes agreements on nuclear weapons and a reduction of military spending. Some consider the possibility of a new Yalta conference, but with different players.

Ukraine is in tough spot in that they have a constitutional amendment they pushed through to ban all talks with Russia. Russia will not make agreements with Zelensky since his term expired in 2024 and they do not consider him a legitimate representative. They are talking about new election is October, but that will most likely be too little, too late. Their parliament should appoint negotiators and Ukraine needs to have seperate talks with Russia.

Ukraine would be wise to not give up their mineral wealth, if they hope to be a prosperous and viable country in the future. What will be left of Ukraine could still be a prosperous country, if they agree to be militarily neutral and negotiate trade agreements with the EU and Russia.  While some believe that the U.S. should recoup its losses, the reality is this was a U.S. inspired project and it should bear this cost. Ukraine's cost of lives and and property is incalculable. Ukraine will need to make many hard decisions and it must start with free and fair elections across the country.

Limited options to resolve Ukraine conflict.

 WEST HAS USED ALL ITS LEVERS EXCEPT DIRECT WAR WITH RUSSIA

TIME TO FACE REALITY AND MOVE ON

In the last few days we have seen the usual criticism about a possible end to the Ukraine conflict. We hear that Trump is about to surrender to Putin. We hear that the U.S. is about to abandon Ukraine and NATO. We hear that if Putin comes out of this as a possible victor it is a disaster for the West.

The reality is that there really are only 2 options. One is to end this conflict by acknowledging that Ukraine cannot ever be part of NATO. That Russia has indeed now expanded its borders into what was once considered Ukraine by the West. That Russia has been able to withstand the combined resources of NATO and prevailed.

The other option is to enlist the full power of NATO and send ground, air and all out support for Ukraine, in effect WW3. While we hear brave words by some leaders in NATO, I do not see that they have the capability or resolve to go to all out war with Russia. If NATO intercedes, more than they have to date, there is the possibility that they will be defeated by Russia, or even worse, if they should march into Russia that would result in a nuclear catastrophe.

This Ukraine project was ill conceived and unnecessary. It has resulted in the economic crisis in Europe, it has had repercussions all around the globe and contributed to the hastening decline of the economic and political power of the West. Prolonging this conflict will result in the loss of another generation of Ukrainian young men, further decline of the economic prosperity of Europe and the accelerating emergence of an alternative global economic system. A system that if it is considered a threat rather than a possible cooperative and co-existing reality will lead to further economic and political decline of the West.

The Ukraine project has been the worst political decision of the 21st. century, so far. Much of it had to do with hubris and a disdain for the concerns of anyone other than their own concerns. It was a gross overestimating of their ability or to understand their limitations. Continuing in the name of honor and face saving will only result in further damage without any positive outcome. 

Time to strip Social Security out of federal budget.

 SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD BE MANAGED INDEPENDENTLY

IT WILL BE MORE SECURE IF THE POLITICS ARE REMOVED 

Whether you like or dislike social security it is here to stay and is supported by the vast majority of Americans. At present it is funded by Payroll taxes which are presently 12.4%, half paid by employers, and half by employees, Self employed pay the 12.4%. The fund has not been in a surplus since 2021, it  has been operating in a deficit since that time. Currently the fund spends $1.5 Trillion each year 21 % of federal budget. 

In the 1980's reform was enacted that raised the payroll taxes and provided a surplus for over 40 years. The surplus was spent by the federal government and traded the money for government debt. This surplus will eventually be used up and then serious adjustments will need to made.

There are lots of ill conceived band aid proposals, but the reality is the fund should not be managed as part of the federal budget. Co-mingling of funds would never be accepted in the private sector for obvious reason, the same reasons that it should not be co-mingled with the federal budget.

Some believe that Social Security should be means tested, that is, if you have wealth you should not be able to collect social security, but of course, such people would be required to finance it and at in increasing rate, in effect, making it a welfare program, that would cause the lose of some support for the program.

Then some would raise the maximum that would be taxed, which is now $176,000, which has been going up regularly, again the benefits to these high payers, does not go up, so again another move to a welfare program.

At present the federal government owes social security $2.8 trillion in government debt. This is providing the difference between what is collected and what is spent for now. 

A better idea would be to put a financial management team in charge of the finances of the fund. The money would no longer be part of the federal budget and would be managed independently with, of course, oversight from congress.

Hopefully a full audit and review of social security will make a more efficient program and eliminate any fraud or abuse. Then the government debt would be transferred into the fund and the managers would be able to use that money to invest at least part of it to increase the return and extend the life of the fund. Also such a move would take much of political narrative away from this fund, the annual threats of elimination and cuts replaced with a more objective approach to sustaining the program.

Classic RUN on London Bullion market?

 PAPER GOLD IS NOW SELLING FOR LESS THAN REAL GOLD

DOES LONDON MARKET HAVE THE GOLD TO COVER CONTRACTS ?

It has long been rumored that the London Bullion market and the Comex in New York have been manipulating the price of gold. It also appears that there are more futures contracts, that set the daily price of gold, than actual gold. The mechanisms of the LBMA in London and the Comex discourage the actual taking position of physical gold by fees, contracts, wait times and also possibly barring future business. 

In the last 3 years the Central banks of the world have been buying gold and taking possession of that gold, Central banks that often stored their gold in London and New York have also been taking possession of their gold reserves. Much of this is a reaction to the West's freezing of the assets of Russia at the start of the Ukraine conflict. Many are concerned that under some pretence the big bullion banks will either confiscate or refuse to repatriate their gold.

Gold that is stored in these bullion banks is often loaned to others and contracts are traded back and forth, but the gold never leaves the bank. Gold of ETFS are stored in these banks and the title or contract is just exchanged, again the gold never moves and the banks make it actually difficult and expensive to take possession.

It then becomes possible for the banks, as has been the practice every time that paper receipts are traded and the gold remains in a fixed location to issue more respites than there is gold. Just a form of Fraud. This practice allowed goldsmiths of the middle ages to finance expeditions to the new world and other speculations with the practice of producing more receipts than there was in their actual possession, the gold was actually someone else's gold. When word leaked out that this was occuring, it resulted in the classic RUN on the bank and often the demise of the bad actors.

Central Banks learned this scam well, at one time a U.S. citizen could exchange a $20 paper bill or receipt for 1 ounce of gold. A 1 dollar bill for near 1 oz of silver. Just a side note to this story.

Many central banks, especially the biggest holders of U.S.Treasury debt, China and Japan have been liquidating their treasury notes and buying gold and taking possession of the actual metal. In the last 3 years they and other central banks have taken possession of over 2000 tons of gold. If the trend in 2025 continues it will be over 2000 tons this year. 

At the same time the gold price in the U.S. is higher than in London, so many are moving their gold to New York, then taking possession. The delivery time from the London exchange has risen to 4 to 8 weeks, rather than days as was the norm, raising the concern that they do not have the gold.

Another fact is that the actual metal is traded in Shanghai, were only physical gold is traded for a higher price than paper contracts in London or New York. This creates a flow of gold from New York and London to Shanghai, draining gold from storage into the cash market at a profit, especially for those who want physical possession of their gold.

The same thing is happening to the silver market.

Take note that the new Secretary of Treasury has stated that " The U.S. is going to monetize the assets of the United States into the balance sheet" I am not sure if they now plan to sell re-estate, buildings, or the 8000 tons of gold that are presumed to be stored by the United States, gold that has not been audited since right after WW2.

Anyway, we will see what happens in the coming days in these markets, if the bullion banks can not produce the gold they claim to have, it will be a economic disaster with unknowable repercussions.

 

Hegseth may not be up to reform at Pentagon.

 NO MORE MONEY WITHOUT AUDIT AND REVIEW

IS HEGSETH ASKING FOR $200 BILLION MORE? 

One must wonder if Pete Hegseth has already been incorporated into the giant Pentagon swamp. After only a few weeks as the head of the biggest department in the federal government, we have not as yet seen any action on reform or indications that it will happen. We have heard of the indication that they expect to increase the budget by $200 billion in the next 2 years and amazingly has proposed that a complete audit would be completed in the next 4 years, after he may no longer be in the position. 

While everyone believes in a strong, modern defense, it can only be accomplished with a strong America. A strong America will not be the reality by throwing more money at an unaccountable bureaucracy. Audit first, then see were more money is needed. A complete and thorough audit and also a review of present practices and decision making as to what is being produced for the end users, the men in uniform.

The biggest strength of the U.S. military in WW2 was the strength of the U.S. manufacturing capacity, a midget compared to 70 years ago, without a strong manufacturing capacity, independent of foreign imports, it is a very vulnerable fact.

There are indications from many, that the products and weapons currently being produced are over engineered, over expensive, complicated to operate and require specialized and difficult maintenance. They may be amazing in the controlled environment of a congressional sales pitch, but in the mud, rain, snow and heat of battle may be not as effective as more basic weapons. How is it that Russia with a budget of less 10% of all of NATO can outproduce them in artillery shells? Not a hard question, but maybe difficult to answer.

Can our aircraft fly without the use of complicated electronics, I don't know, but I think it is a relative question? Is anyone asking that question? Can our complicated electronic controlled equipment be neutralized with electronic warfare.

There are many who believe the Navy, except for submarines, is a bunch of floating slow moving targets for sophisticated cruise missiles a drone swarms, Is that a fact? Is anyone asking? Is it now possible that a billion dollar aircraft carrier and thousands of crew members are vulnerable to weapons now possessed by third world adversaries.

We have watched as warfare has evolved in a very fast time in Ukraine. With all the tanks and sophisticated weapons it is an artillery war with drone warfare becoming the dominate new weapon.  Not million dollar drones, but often jury rigged weapons fashioned by not genius soldiers. They have been the most effective weapon by the Ukraine military. It is also clear that Ukraine has voiced its opinion that much of the training provided by the west is non effective in this war. Is anyone listening?

We have not yet heard of the fate of 44 four star generals or how many bureaucrats does it take to make an artillery shell. Without real reform, review and a audit, the Pentagon will continue to be sink hole of funds without what is needed for the future defense.

Common theme of Trump's foreign policy, No U.S. troops.

 NO TROOPS IN GAZA OR UKRAINE

HOPEFULLY IT WILL STAY THAT WAY

We see Trump's ideas for solutions in Gaza and Ukraine, both do not seem to be serious proposals. 

The proposal for Gaza is the IDF is going to remove 2 million from Gaza and then hand it over to the U.S. for a long time to redevelop.  Unlikely that the now overstretched IDF can even attempt to undertake such a solution, even if there was somewhere for them to go.  He also says no U.S. troops.

Then we see the leaked peace plan for Ukraine, one that will not get the time of day from the Russians, because it doesn't address NATO expansion, but envisions a demilitarized zone occupied with UK troops, again no U.S. troops. I doubt that the U.K,  actually the biggest supporter of war with Russia, can muster enough troops to police a 800 mile demilitarized zone. Maybe, they can be helped by Lithuania and Estonia other advocates of war with Russia.

While many are attempting to take these proposals seriously, I doubt that Russia, Middle east powers or even Trump believe they will ever happen. 

I suspect that Trump is messaging in a round about way, that the those involved in these disputes will need to come up with a workable plan, a realistic plan, it could take a long time until that situation is ripe for serious negotiations. Meantime, Trump may very well concentrate on domestic policy, which is in vital interest of the United States.

General thoughts about current news.

 OFTEN QUOTED LINES THAT ARE NOT TRUE

SOME REFORMS TO LESSEN CORRUPTION

We see the intensity of reaction to current efforts to limit corrupt government. USAID was an unaccountable vehicle that has damaged the reputation of the U.S., it was used for social engineering in countries that have different cultural and religious backgrounds, not our business. It was used to to infiltrate and interfere in the political workings of foreign governments often creating chaos, unrest, revolution and death, again not in the best long term interest of the U.S., It was also now known to be what it really was, a CIA front with some good works for window dressing.

Fact, Ukraine never had nuclear weapons that they were forced to give up. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, which had nuclear weapons positioned in the Ukraine region. Are U.S. nukes in Turkey or Germany their or ours? Are nuclear weapons in Nebraska Nebraska's?,

Iran is not or never was the biggest financier of world terrorism. While it does and has supported opposition groups in the mideast, it has not supported terrorism in Europe or the U.S. The biggest supporter of sunni terrorism was the wealthy in Saudi Arabia. Much of that has now been suppressed, when the new head of the Saudi government, Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, MBS, came to power in 2022. He has introduced many reforms that have moved Saudi Arabia in a new direction.

Most everyone agrees that the the U.S. has become very corrupt and its representatives have not been responsive to the desires of the citizenry. Much of the problem is that when representatives move to Wessington they become part of Washington and soon become representatives of Washington to their districts, often soon touting the policies of Washington insiders and "Experts".

A move in the right direction would be for representative not have a permanent situation in Washington, they should have an office and live in their district and only go to Washington for possibly 2, 30 days sessions to vote on legislation, all other communication can be done electronically and they possibly will retain some more allegiance to the people they are supposed to represent.

The reality is the United States cannot sustain the spending, deficits and debt as is the current situation. While many will say, well, that has been situation forever and life goes on, but it will not continue much longer and may have already exceeded the ability to correct. There are many interests to keep the gravy train rolling and the correction will come, either by willful action or circumstances beyond anyone's control,. either will be painful, but that latter will be catastrophic.

Trump's Gaza plan: Universally rejected.

 I DOUBT THAT TRUMP IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE HIS PRESIDENCY 

AN IMPOSSIBLE SOLUTION, BETTER IDEAS WELCOME

The reaction to Donald Trump's solution in Gaza has created outrage, shock and universal rejection. It seemed no one has seen this coming, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Has Trump again created mass hysteria just by proposing a plan, that is so very unlikely, to ever be implemented?

I could go through all the reasons why this plan is near impossible, but it would take a very long article. 

Briefly, the residents are not going willingly, and the death and destruction would be worse than the last 13 months to get them out.

Trump's supporters would not approve U.S. troops in Gaza. It would in effect be a the end of all his plans for reform at home.

The Muslim community in the region is vehemently opposed.

The Israeli, "Greater Israel " faction would be opposed to the U.S. owning Gaza for along time.

Egypt and Jordon cannot take these people as it would likely cause the overthrow of their governments.

What Trump proposed, I suspect, is that there are no credible solutions being offered and he is going to reject attacking Iran and possibly supporting any more bombing in Gaza. Trump is under a lot of pressure to do both. Now everyone can discuss the impossibility of this solution, and attacks on Iran are put on the back burner.

It is expected that Trump is going to remove U.S. troops from Syria, It will cause a lot of opposition in the U.S. and Israel.

Trump has in the past offered proposed plans that are exaggerations of actual plans either already being implemented or proposed, that he does not support. One is when he stated that the U.S. should take the oil in Syria, which was already being taken, and created outrage by those who were actually taking the oil. 

John Bolton stated that Trump actually damaged the Greenland deal by his hamfisted proposal. Was that a intentional? 

Is this Gaza plan an exaggerated actual plan being proposed by Israel?

It is clear that Trump's proposal, that seems to have not been discussed with anyone, is not a viable plan. His opponents can now say that he is deranged and dangerous, I don't think he cares. He will keep his supporters happy, by actual actions, rather than speculation. 

Rubio, maybe the diplomat for the time?

 ADMITS WE NOW LIVE IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD

WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF RUSSIA AND CHINA

Marco Rubio was the most troublesome cabinet pick by Donald Trump. He at one time was a advocate of the policy's of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney. After watching several interviews in the last few days, I have changed my mind, at least for now.

I now understand why Trump picked Marco Rubio for the position of Secretary of State. He has been very transparent and very clear in his vision of U.S. strategic interest and his, and we can assume Donald Trump's, goals. He is better at describing the new Trump policy than Trump. 

It is becoming clear that the Trump administration is focusing on the Western Hampshire as its main sphere of influence, it does appear to be Monroe 2.0. Rubio being fluent in spanish is the man for this job.

His first trip was to Panama in which he described his approach, as a diplomatic approach, to let Panama know that the U.S. is concerned with China holding influence on the Panama canal and that there is a treaty with U.S. that is in violation, if China has control of the canal. I can expect that they also discussed Panama take action to stop migrants from moving north through the narrow portion of Panama. 

He next went to El Salvador were it is reported the country has eliminated much of the crime in the country, under the new leadership. It was also revealed that El Salvador will agree to take any illegal criminal held in the U.S. and house them for a fee. A cost that is much less than in the U.S. It is also made clear that this action can start immediately. A great savings for the U.S. prison system by opening up space were many prisons are overcrowded and cut costs for federal and state and local prison systems.

Then there is an agreement with Venezuela that caused several U.S. citizens to be released and an agreement to receive all Venezuelans deported from the U.S. There are also indications of some thawing of relations with Venezuela.

Rubio has voiced his belief that it is indeed a multi-polar world and that Russia and China are great powers that we need to deal with and recognize their strategic interests, while protecting our own interests. A breath of fresh air for U.S. foreign policy. 

It again appears that there is recognition of spheres of influence that may be the basis of a new global security policy that will look for areas of cooperation and solve conflicts through diplomatic efforts, rather than sanctions and intimidation.

An indication of the administrations view of  the Ukraine conflict:

Rubio made this comment in an interview with Megyn Kelly,  "What the dishonesty is that we somehow let people to believe that Ukraine would be able not just to defeat Russia, but destroy it, push it all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014"