AI and Genetic engineering: Beware of the Brave new world.

NOT YET REALITY, BUT NOT FICTION

ARE WE ABOUT TO NEED TO DEFINE WHAT IS HUMAN?

There is much talk about the possibilities of Artificial Intelligence. The advances have been moving at a lightning pace. We now see robots that are beginning to look and act human. There is talk of them having the ability to LEARN, to express emotions, talk and adapt to new challenges. There is talk of them replacing humans for many menial tasks and maybe eventually not so menial.  It seems there is much interest and financial investment going into this research.  Without a doubt there are plans to substitute humans with these new entities for some occupations and some tasks.

Are we about to begin to debate what is the definition of a human. Is it an entity that is flesh and blood that stands erect, that has all the features of what we recognize today. Or is the definition of human far more complex, the ability to reason, adapt to changes, engage in abstract thought and put those thoughts into material creations. To have emotions, human instinct like survival and fear and hope, maternal instincts, family instincts and such traits are far more complicated .

Now consider, why spend vast sums on artificial intelligence that will need to be built, repaired and maintained. When we are now about to enter an era where it may be possible to engineer a living being or entity that will be self maintaining and reproducible.  Since the breakthrough of CRISPR in genetic engineering or gene editing it is becoming possible to modify embryos with a specific purpose or result in mind. In fact, it is reported that China has already had twin girls born that have been genetically modified. While this example has been condemned by China and others as unethical, if it can be done, it will be done. 

Now this example supposedly had to do with attempting to suppress the ability to contract HIV, but it is going to be possible to do much more. So imagine what can be possible. What if it should be decided that if scientists take unfertilized embryos and alter them that they no longer have the characteristics of humans that would fit into the accepted definition of what is human. Would some society accept that such entities, while they may have the physical appearance of humans, actually are not, but are now a new entity that could possibly even be patented. If all the emotions, instincts and behavioral characteristics of human are stripped out, then science could eventually make many special purpose entities that would easily replace humans to do much of the labor needed to keep society going.

There could be entities for the purpose of combat or police work. Household entities that could maintain all the needed choirs in every home. There could be entities that could act as surrogates if impregnated  in vitro with human fertilized embryos. The possibilities are endless.

These entities would also provide a endless source for organs and fetal tissue now hoped to be able extend life.

The maturing process could be shortened to become useful in a quicker time and they could be fully reproducible, no manufacturing, no maintenance. They could be engineered to have a specific length of useful time to function.

Such advancements would fulfill all the requirements of a sustainable planet. Many are already accepting the idea that the planets population should be downsized by between 1/2 and 1/10 of the current population. These new entities could replace much of the population and would not require or need near the resources that humans now use. The possibilities are soon to be endless.

So, while all this is now not reality, it is not science fiction, because it is going to be possible. This research IS going on now and the interest in downsizing the population is now an open topic of discussion.

We must believe that being as a god is enough enticement for such research to become an obsession for some that will not be controlled.

Originally published 11/15/22

MIT has released an article how they are anticipating the ability to produce humanoid bodies for research and body parts. I expect this is already going on somewhere.

3/31/2025

Americans refuse to face nation's economic reality.

 AUSTERITY IS ON THE HORIZON

NO MATTER WHO IS IN POWER

We watch as adds bombard us with the threat of cuts to medicaid, actually not part of anyone's policy. Lamentations on the fate of possible laid off government workers. Cuts to foreign aid questioned as unreasonable. I could go on and on with the narrative that any cuts or decisions to reign in federal government spending is inappropriate and unreasonable. The reality is that the United States is a lot poorer than most want to admit. When you have a debt that is approaching 150% of GDP, a GDP that is bloated with financial transactions that do not represent any real increase in wealth and a budget that is financed with near 30% more debt, the reality is that the country is in dire economic straits.

This reality is coming, no matter who the president is, no matter who is in congress, no matter if you want it to happen or not. It is coming by a mix of geopolitical trends that are now out of the control of the United States government and the bill that needs to be paid for 50 years of irresponsible fiscal policy and delusional policies of the Federal government. It will be a hard adjustment to live in a country that can no longer have the lifestyle financed by deficit spending and borrowed money. The United States is going to be forced to live within its means, the die is cast and it is inevitable.

Of course, the political blame game will want to blame the opposition but the reality is that the whole country is to blame for allowing this situation to come to this disastrous point of no return. From buying votes at home, and someone has been willing to be bought, to buying friends and allies abroad, the time of reckoning is at hand. 

The choice is, can we as a nation take the measures to manage this economic reality or will we just hope it will not come while it still effects us personally? It is coming very soon and is in fact happening now.

The U.S. is going to be forced to withdraw support to many other nations around the world, it will be forced to close military bases all over the world. It will be forced to cut government spending dramatically, just to stop the bleeding.

Then for the long term it needs to incentivise a return to a manufacturing economy from the now 11% of the GDP to as much as 30%. Only manufacturing creates real wealth, too much of this economy is non wealth producing activity, paper transactions and of course government employment. No, everyone can not have a government job, with high wages and great benefits, without someone producing wealth to pay for it.

WE are going to have a readjustment of priorities, either by managed unified collective action or the harsh reality that will be a far more painful choice. Someone needs to get out the white board and have a heart to heart with the American people, but I expect they are not ready yet, but would just be so much fodder for political advantage. Maybe only desperation will make reality acceptable.

EU and Ukraine reject Black Sea deal.

 DEAL WOULD HAVE LOWERED FOOD PRICES WORLD WIDE

EXPECT U.S. TO WITHDRAW UKRAINE SUPPORT

A proposed Black sea ceasefire deal that would have allowed the export of both Ukrainian and Russia grain and Russian fertilizer back into the world market, is being rejected by Ukraine and the EU., they both insist that pressure must be maintained against Russia. 

The deal would have restricted Russian war ships to the eastern part of the Black sea and would have protected shipping in the Black sea for all those concerned. Ukraine would have reaped financial benefits from being able to sell grain on the world market and fertilizer exports would have dramatically lowered the cost of food production world wide.

If they continue to refuse to accept this deal, it can be expected that the U.S. will cut off military aid to Ukraine. The continuing of this conflict, which it is widely acknowledged will not be settled in Ukraine's favour, is having serious financial consequences for the rest of the world, including the EU and the United States.

One of the main reasons for high food prices in the United States is the tripling of fertilizer prices in the country when Russian fertilizer was sanctioned in an effort to pressure Russia. Coupled with the fact that much of the east coasts diesel fuel was also an export from Russia, the combination has raised the cost of food production in the western world.

Food and energy prices in the EU are even higher and contributing to a loss of economic prosperity, yet it seems the EU is willing to sacrifice its own future in this failed effort to defeat Russia. They have rejected every deal both before the onset of the current conflict and in the early stages. The situation continues to deteriorate for both Ukraine and the EU and is affecting prosperity in much of the world.

We can expect consequences for the rejection of this deal.

Text messaging sabotage?

 WHO ADDED LEFT WING JOURNALIST TO TEXT CHAT?

IS THIS THE ONLY WAY TO COMMUNICATE?

So it seems everyone is outraged that somehow a left wing journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to a text chat between members of the Trump administration. The chat involved plans to bomb the Houthis in Yemen. 

The first question is, is this the best way for government officials to communicate? Is this the only way for them to communicate?  It is true that text messaging is what everyone does today. You can call people many times and get little response, text them and a response is likely in minutes, if not seconds. It seems to cut out much of hyperbole that is used in voice communication, often a yes or no is all that is needed. I suspect that there may be a moré secure method of communicating, but I am not sure about this question. We must remember that Hillary Clinton found it compelling to destroy over 30,000 messages when she was Secretary of State. Texting and emails seem to be a necessary method of communication.

The question at hand is how did this journalist get added to this chat group? Someone had to have this journalists number in the phone, Why? This affair brings back memories of intentional sabotage of Donald Trump by white house staff insiders, Alexander Vindman and  Eric Ciaramella who leaked confidential conversations to the media in an effort to damage Trump. It rings very much of the same play book of an effort to damage Trump's national security staff. We see the media and the democrat's are ecstatic that they feel they have something to narrate about for weeks to come.

Whoever had this journalists contact info whether it was Waltz, the Chief intelligence adviser or someone on his staff, they need to be held accountable. We can only assume they added this person to create a scandal for the Trump administration. Find them, prosecute them, and of course, fire them. 

Then there is the possibility that Waltz is being set up by others to discredit him and get him out of his position. 

Like the Hillary emails, they are all available in the records of the NSA, so if they really want to know what happend, they can find out, if they really want to know. I suspect this response will be a low key response maybe sometime in the future. 

Ukraine, No end to conflict in sight.

 ONLY WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT WILL HAVE REAL EFFECT

EU AND UKRAINE WANT TO CONTINUE

It is clear that Ukraine and its supporters in the EU are not ready to end this conflict. While there has been reluctant approval of some sort of ceasefire it is all just in the hope of gaining some military advantage. Russia, who might consider some sort of end to this conflict is more realistic in that they doubt any such early resolution with long term results is possible.

Ukraine is now lowering its draft age in the hope of getting more recruits, it will likely see more men leaving the country and will not result in a trained effective military, just another generation wiped out.

The only tool to quicken this end is to suspend all military support as quickly as possible while keeping up communication and humanitarian support.

There are some in this country and in the EU and the die hard nationalists in Ukraine who would like to keep this conflict going for another decade, if possible. The reality is that the longer it goes on, the smaller Ukraine will be, when it ends. 

The U.S. supporters, do not care about Ukraine, just keeping Russia tied up and the hope of some sort of regime change in Russia. 

The EU leaders cannot accept a win for Russia at any cost, even their own economic survival and political future. The EU is very likely to suffer permanent consequences from this Ukraine conflict. It is questionable if they can have a prosperous future without Russian energy and Russia can survive without selling them energy.

If the U.S. ends military support, the EU will for a time try to continue support, but they really do not have the capacity to continue, without further damaging their own economies and the inevitable political consequences.

What we see is the result of decades of Russian hate baiting that has affected the judgment of the present western leadership, They can no longer make a pragmatic and rational decision. Very dangerous, if they had the military capacity to challenge Russia, we should be thankful that they do not.

4 Presidents baited into attacking Iran.

 WILL TRUMP FINALLY SUCCUMB?

REMEMBER, AMERICA FIRST 

Trump has been encouraged to attack Iran, in his first term, and again now. He joins the ranks of George Bush 2, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who all said NO. They said no, because they believed it was a bad idea and they didn't even advance an "America First" policy. It is not in the best interest of the United States to attack Iran. It will push an already fragile world economy over the edge and will in effect, end Donald Trump's presidency.

While many would like nothing better than an end to his presidency, Trump needs to stay the course and say no to any further war escalation. 

Much of the pressure is coming from Israel and the Israel lobby, who make the claim that the only way for Israel to be safe is to destroy every opponent who is more powerful than them. Iraq is gone, Libya is gone, Syria is gone and yet they are still not any safer than they were 25 years ago. Some now advocate attacking Egypt, and of course, the Houthi's in Yemen. There is no end to enemies in this neighborhood and it is impossible to annihilate them all. While Israel may feel they have made progress in the last few years, I suspect their future is dimmer than ever, while many have been killed, at least 2 more generations of hate have been created. Economically damaged, socially divided and a steady exodus out of the country, all contributing to a dismal future for Israel. World War 3 will not make it better.

Trump is in a difficult position, but he needs to remember the big picture, reforming and strengthening America, a supremely difficult and overwhelming feat in itself. War in Ukraine, War in Iran and any other war is mostly impossible without the support of America. We need to just say, no more escalation, supported by the U.S..  

Little men in Europe are talking big, threatening to wipe out 40 Russian cities, but only with our support. Tell them publicly, go for it, but you are on your own, and they will be very quiet quickly.

Same for Netanyahu, tell him to go for it, but we are out. and the baiting and coaxing will end in a minute. 

That is the kind of strength that is needed to forestall a war that will destroy much of the world.

We can do without Federal dept. of Education.

 NO NEED FOR NATIONAL TEACHERS UNION

STATES FREE TO INNOVATE

There really is not a provision in the constitution that provides for a Federal department of Education. It has not resulted in better outcomes and has raised the cost of education with the numerous mandates it has demanded in exchange for federal money. Many have questioned whether the money has actually offset the cost of the mandates.

Without a Department of Education a National Teachers Union would be irrelevant. Their main purpose was to lobby congress for more mandates and hopefully more money. There are indications that the National Teachers Union is the spearpoint of Woke Ideology in the schools. It is without a doubt run by big government marxist ideologs. Teachers would be free from their dues and also free from the intimidation that many experience to submit to these ideologies.

Schools would be free to innovate by tailoring curriculum more inline with their communities and not be forced to replace tried and true books for unproven ideas that have proved to be failures, like new math. The whole idea is an oxymoron, math could be taught from books that are 100 years old and possibly more successfully than some of the crazed ideas that seemed to more an effort to complicate math. 

While we will hear the usual weeping and gnashing of teeth, lawsuits, and hysteria, schools will do well without the a National department of Educations that just raised costs to the schools and lined the pockets of the well connected education bureaucrats and suppliers. 

Democrat operatives turn to terrorism.

 NO IDEAS, NO POLICIES, JUST INTIMIDATION AND CHAOS

IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SUPPORTED WITH GOVERNMENT MONEY?

It used to be "Black lives matter" and Antifa, but now it is firebombing everything Tesla. The outrage and hate baiting for Elon Musk is an indication that the Democrats have indeed been living off  money laundering of government money. We saw the Ukraine Crypto heist  which suggested that money given to Ukraine was then laudered back into democratic operatives or campaign contributions. Joe Biden and his family seems to have crudely been kick backed money from Ukraine. USAID money may have been used in a similar way. Now it may be that that was just the tip of the iceberg, they have been living on U.S. taxpayers money for decades and they are desperate to keep the fraud alive.

When Musk talks about possible fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, it immediatly is turned into cuts in those programs, complete with campaign ads and paid protests. Who would be opposed to making sure that all expenditures are going to people eligible for those benefits? Only those who are in fact not eligible and profiting from the fraud.

The Clintons were slick enough to use their foundation to funnel kick backed foreign aid into the foundation and then to democrat causes, it may have been chump change compared to what has been going on for decades. 

Obama funneled near $10 billion in bank fines to select democrat organizations  https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/219171338015504465/5196590029983041118  It may be even a bigger scandal than that.

The reality is that if Musk, who is only identifying waste, fraud and abuse, must be over the right target, as the flack is far more  dense than over Berlin in 1943.  They seem to hate him even more than Trump and Putin. They would very much like to destroy this gifted entrepreneur than have their fraud exposed.

I suspect that it would be a wise and timely endeavor to investigate the money transfers in  ACTBLUE to see if this a money launderer of government money to Democrat politicians.

/

Will Democrats survive their Trump hatred?

 AN 8 YEAR ADDICTION MAY BE FATAL

EMBRACING CRIMINAL ALIENS AND OVERSPENDING

It is now amazing that 4 months after the last election and Democrats still are stuck in their policy of resisting or reversing any policy put forward by Donald Trump. If he is for it, they are against it, without reason or facts, just a simple knee jerk reaction. One would think they would reevaluate and regroup, but it now seems they will continue with the same approach, hoping the result will be different.

The fact that they are resisting the deportation of criminal gang members here in the country without any legal status and any cuts to spending, no matter how frivolous or ridiculous, is just an amazing spectacle. It appears they have no alternative policies, no better ideas, just Trump resistance.  Could it be that the policies of the Democrats have resulted in a field of leaders that are devoid of any ability to think or analyze this situation? Is their dilemma the result of their adopting the policy of EDI, rather substance and excellence,  has actually resulted in self destruction? A true test of the results of their own policies.

While we live in a country that is a representative democracy or a republic, they are consumed by their own ideology that has strayed far from the mainstream of the country and are unable to readjust. One must wonder if there is another Bill Clinton, who came to their rescue many years ago, after they burned themselves at the stake of their out of touch ideology. I suspect they have driven out any such talent and replaced it with hell bent ideologs that can no longer think, but only react. The present Democrat party is a product of their own maladjustment. 

The reality is the country is on the precipice of serious economic and global perils and they are not a positive influence, but dead weight that helps to discourage the country from making the tough decisions that at least hopes to manage these immense challenges. Sadly, they have no positive contributions to add, just the hope of maintaining the policies that have placed us in many of these dire circumstances.

Trump and Putin to talk today. Just a step to co-existence.

 IT WILL TAKE DECADES FOR ANY REAL NORMALIZATION WITH RUSSIA

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

It is reported that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are set to talk today. Some are expecting some kind of dramatic resolution or ceasefire, that is a delusional expectation. The U.S. is in fact the author of the Ukraine project that has resulted in millions of lives and mass destruction. While Trump may have a different perspective on this conflict, there are many in the U.S. government who still believe that the only good Russian is a dead Russian. That includes some prominent Republican Senators, State department employees and intelligence operatives. After years of anti-Russian propaganda a good number of U.S. citizens share that view. Coexistence is the best that can be expected.

Any agreements between Trump and Putin may fall by the wayside in four years, Russia understands this, and cannot be persuaded that good words and good intentions will not evaporate very quickly. The talking is a step in the right direction, something that, if done 15 years ago could have avoided this ongoing tragedy.

So far, this talk was agreed to when Trump has advocated, no NATO in Ukraine and that those 4 oblasts will remain part of Russia. That is the basis for the possibility of a resolution, just the beginning. If Biden has consented to no NATO in Ukraine, this war would not have happened. The ongoing civil war in Ukraine could have been resolved with Ukraine keeping its territory, less Crimea. Ukraine could have had trade and good relations with the EU and Russia and had the potential to be the most prosperous country in Europe. All that is now gone, forever, not to be, the best hope is that a neutral and non-aligned Ukraine can still have a sovereign and somewhat prosperous future. The alternitiver is a forever destitute Ukraine, dependent on support of the west that soon may have trouble supporting itself.

Then there is the EU countries that still want to continue the war, talk of sending troops, recruiting mercenaries from the middle-east, all in an effort to save face. Most likely a lot of hot air. But nonetheless an indication that peace is not hand. Russia will not tolerate NATO troops in Ukraine under any circumstance.

It is also reported that over 30 NATO officers are part of the group trapped near Sudzah, Is this why Trump is concerned for their welfare, how many are U.S. officers?

So, lets hope that Trump and Putin can get clear messages from each other to build some sort of ability for the world to coexist, the alternative is a very poor choice for us all.

A brief history of money.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MONEY

Money, we are all familiar with it, most want more, some to the point of  excess. It has been described as the, "Root of all Evil".  Realistically, we do need a certain amount, but I would like to talk about a simple brief history of Money.

Originally, most financial transactions were a form of barter,"I'll trade you a goat for that woven shirt that one of your wives made". Or,"I am tired of goats, how about we trade for some of your sheep". This all worked out well and good, but eventually someone got the bright idea of converting wealth to some form of exchange.

There is some record of salt being a form of exchange, or round stones with holes,  but most items were quick to lose their value when someone either found a pit with enough salt to flood the market or a method to mass produce stones with holes.

Eventually they settled on gold and silver as a form of money. Early records show that, as early as 2150 BC, the Shekel and Talent were used in the middle east, These were measures of weight,  A shekel was .36 of a troy weight oz. A Talent was equal to 60 manehs and 3000 shekels. This standard of weight was used by Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, Persia etc.  The ratio was 15 shekel's of silver = 1 shekel of gold.  Everyone had a balance scale to do business.

Finally, as governments grew and became more sophisticated, the minting of money began. This consisted of coins which were of a standardized weight, usually embossed with the image of  the King or individual in power at the time. It made trade much simpler and  must have caused a recession in the scale business.

As is usually the case, it did allow for some skulduggery, clipping and shaving of coins was known to happen. Then Kings sometimes made the coins smaller with the same designation. This may have been the first form of Government endorsed inflation.  "Honey, were did we put that old scale?"

Interestingly, the size and weight of coins varied over the years, but the ratio of gold to silver was fairly constant from 500 BC up to the 20th Century.

Biblical  times-  12-1             Rome          12-1         Europe     0-1492        10-1

Early Greece      13-1             Early Japan  8-1                          1492-1834   15-1

Alexander          10-1             Early China  12-1        England                       16-1

The United States settled on the ratio of 15-1  The Constitution stated that all money was to be gold or silver coin.

O course, we have been talking about gold and silver coins. What about paper money?

In medieval Europe, gold and silver was the medium of exchange. When someone had a little more than needed for survival, they often placed it with a Goldsmith, who had a natural need for security in his business.  He would account for their items and give them a receipt.  The Rothschild's started out this way.  Humans sometimes being a little lazy, and not too careful about things, began to exchange the receipts for other goods and services and leave the gold with the goldsmith.  Goldsmiths, who were a little sharper than the average person of the day, soon realized that his receipts were as good as gold, and no one knew how much gold he really had stored for people. He was able to purchase Real-Estate, finance explorers to the new world and many other endeavors with his own receipts that did not represent gold in his possession. I could expound forever about how they used this power, but I will resist.

There were many known instances were these early bankers got a little too greedy, rumors circulated  that there was more receipts than gold, and a run for their gold started.  When they could not produce the gold,  he might have been found hanging somewhere.

Remember, Politicians and Governments always take note of a good idea to increase their power and wealth.

Early paper money was a receipt for a weight of gold or silver, In the USA. a silver dollar was .7734 troy oz. of silver.  20 silver dollars could be exchanged for 1 Oz. troy of gold, a $20 gold piece. This was a ratio of 15-1. I personally remember silver certificates, which were supposed to be redeemable for 1 silver dollar. Up to 1934 you could exchange a $20 bill for a $20 gold coin. The US dollar had the reputation of being, "as good as gold". The gold-silver ratio today is 72-1.

In 1914, with passage of the Federal Reserve Act,  money no longer represented an asset, but would now represent Government debt. A promise to repay by the government.

In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt, by executive order, ordered all citizens to turn in their Gold Coins in exchange for paper $20.00 bills. Private possession, or exchange of gold was outlawed. When the government decided they had confiscated all the gold they were going to get, they raised the price of gold to $35.00 oz., this was used for trade between countries. Those wonderful paper dollars they exchanged with the citizenry just became worth 43% less than the gold coins they exchanged.  Citizens were threatened with $10,000 fines and 10 years in jail for not cooperating.  Gold ownership was again legalized in December of 1974.

Silver still circulated as coins till 1964,  when they were replaced by alloys with no intrinsic value.

So now all money that exists, has  no intrinsic value, but only the confidence that someone else will exchange goods and services for it. While there are many instances in modern history where that confidence evaporated, so far most people are still willing to accept modern currency.

Currency itself is now in the process of being replaced with electronic currency, Bitcoin, Debit and Credit cards etc.. Endless possibilities, that will make the ancient clippers, shavers and dishonest goldsmiths envious.

originally published Oct. 12, 2015

It appears we are now coming to the end of fiat currency era, that is currency without any real built in value. What will replace it is yet to be seen. Big government would of course love to have currency that is just a digital entry, that they could manipulate, block, or devalue with a click of a computer. It seems some of the world is exploring another option that would be some form of real money. There is one of those age old truths that good money will always drive out bad money. That is true as long as there is an option of good money available. I expect we will seeing the new options in the near future. 
5/8/23

We now see the plan to introduce a central bank digital currency. Indeed, a monetary unit without any intrinsic value, unable to be held personally. It will allow governments to view every transaction, determine what transactions should be allowed, confiscate all wealth with the click of a computer key and in effect give government ultimate power over the people. It will be the end of all freedom of choice in a free market. It will give government the ability to tax, inflate, confiscate and dictate what can and cannot be traded. It will create all kinds of methods to avoid this trap and will be accompanied with the penalties to enforce that this is the only alternative money.

8/24/23

We can expect the unsustainable debt and deficits of the United States, accompanied by the desire of other countries to flee the use of the dollar, to reach a crisis in the near future. It is very likely that it will soon be clear that this debt will no longer find those willing to risk this haven for their real money. We can expect schemes to rescue this situation with possibly forced investment by IRA and 401's into U.S. debt or a sudden crisis followed by the end of this current fiat money system. We expect the cure to be total control of all assets.

5/3/2024

The EU is pushing to get its CBDC launched this year. As the debt situation in most of the western world is escalating many predict some sort of reset of the financial system. It will most likely be preceded by a debt crisis and then the roll out of the promised solution.

9/27/2024

We now see flight from U.S. bonds from countries around the world. It seems that interest rates are now possibly needed to rise to sell this debt. Those liquidating U.S. debt seem to be buying Monetary metal. The answer to shoring up the U.S. dollar and debt market is a balanced budget. With a $2 trillion deficit either raising taxes or cutting spending will cause a economic recession at best.

1/14/25

The purpose of this article is to hope to make people aware of what money is supposed to be. A store of value, an asset, not an instrument of manipulation by governments. 

3/17/2025

Yes, the government does need to be run like a business.

 ALL ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES ARE BOUND BY THE SAME RULES

YOU CANNOT SPEND MORE THAN YOU HAVE

We hear all kinds of arguments about why the government cannot be run like a business, It is a rationalization to engage in irresponsible spending. The reality is that the United States has been engaging in such spending for over 50 years. Many believe that since we have engaged in these practices for this long, we can continue without any real consequences. We cannot, the world is changing by the day and the United States is losing control of its ability to juggle its fiscal mismanagement. A severe economic consequence is on the horizon and it may actually be too late to avoid it, the best that may be done is to manage it.

The U.S. is going to lose its dollar advantage in the near future, which will then restrain it from exporting its inflated dollars around the world. Fiscal responsibility will come, either by internal management or external reality. 

The biggest indicator of this crisis is the DEBT, and the deficit that is now near 1/3 of the national budget. The debt is a matter that cannot be solved in the near future, but the deficit is what needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The interest on the debt is soon to be the biggest item in the Federal budget, it will squeeze out all other spending. The reality is that the Federal government will, in one way or the other, very likely default on this debt.

To prolong what needs to be done to address this debt requires that the bleeding needs to be stopped as soon as possible. As in a household or business where expenses outway income the first thing to look for is unneeded spending. In a household it may be to cut out daily dunkin donuts and eating out. Or eliminating cable TV or other non essential spending. Painful but necessary. In a business it may be getting rid of the company car or eliminating a non profitable product or some other downsizing to bring the income and expenses into balance. 

The Federal Government has never engaged in a review to see what is essential to the functioning of the government. The first step for any financial enterprise is to stop the bleeding. Cut out those functions that are not essential for the functioning of the government. First, all frivolous endeavors, like free stuff for foreign countries and grants for dubious surveys and analysis. Then possible whole departments. Has the quality of education increased since the founding of the federal department of education, or has it resulted in added costs due to federal mandates that may exceed the money received from the government? These are all questions to be asked. And it is imperative that this happens quickly, not in years, because we do not have years to address these problems. If as a household you are spending 30% over your income every month, how long could you continue?

All departments must be reevaluated. Why does the U.S. have a defense budget 5 times the nearest country, Why does the U.S. have 750 military bases in almost every country in the world? Are they necessary to protect the interest of the citizens of this country? Why does the military have 44 4 star generals when in WW2, fighting with 10 times the personal in 2 theaters we had 7? We need to ask where all the money is going. After spending near 10 Trillion on foreign wars in the last 30 years, have these been in the best interest of the country?  

All that, just in an effort to balance expenses and income. 2 Trillion, out of a budget of 6 Trillion a year, needs to be accounted for. Cutting 2 Trillion will be very painful, somebody is going to need to re evaluate their future. Many would like to raise taxes 2 Trillion, again 2 Trillion will be taken out of the private sector to fund the public sector. It cannot just be taken from the so called rich. Again painful. 

The reality is, all government spending is on the expense side of the ledger. Wealth creation is generated by the private sector. The private sector pays for the public sector one way or another, either through taxes, debt or decreased buying power of the money, Inflation. It is not that complicated and does not require a PHD to see that government spending is where the problem lies and with less spending and regulation the private sector can be enabled to increase the revenue or wealth of the country.

I suspect that due to the political hysteria in the country, we will not address the economic problems and manage them, we will likely just wait for the real catastrophe to begin and then blame it on the opposition. It will allow everyone to feel better for a little while longer.

The west could eliminate Drug cartels almost overnight.

 ARE WE WILLING TO TRADE FOR DANGERS OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ELIMINATE MASSIVE CORRUPTION

DRUG BUSINESS CORRUPTION PERMEATES ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY

When we talk about Drug Cartels we immediately think of Mexico or Columbia or some other south of the border country. The reality is that the money associated with drug cartels and the illegal drug business is corrupting cities, politicians, police departments and every aspect of today's world. I suspect the reach of the drug business has infiltrated every corner of American society and has in fact completely taken over some countries in other parts of the world.

The United States is likely the biggest drug market in the world.

The only way to end the corruption created by the illegal use of drugs is to decide if we are willing to replace the failed attempt at regulating illegal drugs with personal responsibility of those who decide to partake in drug use. 

We need to ask, Is the corruption created by illegal drugs a greater evil than the use of illegal drugs?

The simple remedy would be to take the profit out of the illegal drug business. The only way to do that is to legalize all drugs and make drugs so easy and affordable that the profit motive is completely eliminated. 

Farmers and drug companies could be contracted to produce drugs that would be purchased by the government and distributed free or way below the cost of production. The benefit would be the elimination of drug cartels very quickly, they could not compete with a market selling below their cost. The end of the cartels would also end the corruption in our society to a great degree. Mayors and other politicians would no longer be faced with the sticks and carrots offered by the drug cartels. The cost of the drugs to government would be far less than cost of the corruption.

Of course, the down side would be the social problems caused by the drug use, but would it be worse than what we have now? It would end the corruption, theft associated with paying for these bad habits and the primary bad effects of drug use would removed from much of society and placed solely on those who make the decision to partake in drugs.

The only laws would be to deny access to those under 18 and the penalty would be so severe, maybe even the death penalty, that it would never be a good choice.

I also suspect that the allure of illegal drug use  would eventually diminish as it would soon be viewed as a habit of the poorly adjusted and many of the partakers would self eliminate themselves with an unlimited supply of drugs. 

The idea is to make those who make bad decisions to suffer for their bad decisions and free the rest of society from the consequences of the illegal drug business.

Ukraine agrees to ceasefire: Not going to happen.

 NO CEASEFIRE, NO FROZEN CONFLICT

ONLY SERIOUS LASTING PEACE PLAN ACCEPTABLE

Yesterday it was announced that Ukraine has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire. The EU members quickly agreed that they would support such a ceasefire. Russia will not agree to any ceasefire or other plan, except a comprehensive long term permanent peace plan. Without a doubt the the UK, France and Ukraine would use any such ceasefire to resupply and reorganize their troops for further military action. Ukraine is already talking about the hope of a long term insurgency, even after a peace plan is accepted.

We can assume the narrative will be that Russia rejected a ceasefire and that they hope to create division in the Russian homeland. Russia had poor experiences with Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements that both Angela Merkle of Germany and the president of France admitted were only agreed to to give Ukraine time to prepare for war. No one should doubt that this is just such a ploy, not to end the war, but to keep it going.

It is no coincidence that this agreement coincides with Russia taking over control of Sudzha and in only days away from evicting Ukraine from Russian territory. At the same time Russia has been repelling several counterattacks in the Donbass region and it is only a matter of time until Ukraine will no longer be able to organize serious resistance. It is likely past time for ceasefires and temporary peace plans.

Until the UK, France and Ukraine realize that further resistance is useless and that they will be ruling over a ever smaller Ukraine, no serious peace plan will be possible. Peace will only be possible when all parties truly desire a real lasting peace and it is obvious they are not there yet.

Fantastic Russian operation leads to end of Kursk incursion.

SUDZHA SURROUNDED, UKRAINIANS TRAPPED

KURSK OFFENSIVE ON LAST LEGS

In August 2024, Ukraine began an incursion into the Kursk region of the Russian federation, they quickly captured a large area in the region and fortified it in an effort to use it as beginning chip in any negotiations with Russia. There were attempts to trade for the large nuclear plant in Zaporizhia, but no negotiations ever happened. It was also suggested that it could be traded for areas occupied by Russia in eastern Ukraine.

It took Russia some time to bring in reserves to contest the area that was initially lightly defended because of its geographical location. Eventually Russia began taking back territory incrementally, which seems to be the Russian policy. It took them 6 months to get within armillary range of Ukrainian supply routes and retake 2/3 of the contested territory.

Then last week the Russian consummated an operation that was in the works for several months. They opened a gas pipeline and vacuumed, as much as possible, the natural gas out of the line, then filled it with oxygen. The pipeline was coated with an oily residue and gas fumes that caused illness in many of the troops. The pipeline was over 9 miles long, 4 1/2 ft in diameter and underground. It was a potential grave for all those who entered.

The troops entered the pipeline and waited near 4 days for the command to exit and attack near the center of the city of Sudzha the main stronghold of the Ukraine incursion. 800 troops soon exited this pipeline and began an offensive in the rear of the combat lines of the Ukrainians. They carried all of their ammunition, weapons and other supplies, a fantastic operation.

Simultaneously other Russian troops attacked from the outside perimeter causing confusion and an impossible situation for the Ukrainians. Many were killed and a large number surrendered. They also attempted to evacuate to the south and west and the Russians blew up the bridges to make it impossible to retreat with their motorized equipment. 

As of today, Ukraine has lost about 2/3 of the area they held just last week, their supply lines and retreat roads are now within close range of Russian artillery and drones. It is indeed a dire situation for those trapped in this area, an estimated 8 to 10,000 men. 

Ukraine may be hoping to send in reinforcements to help them escape or cause another attack nearby to distract, but it is very unlikely that this will end well for Ukraine.

Russian Collusion; The biggest political scandal in U.S. history.

 ACCOUNTABILITY NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY TO SURVIVE

LEGAL ACTION AND HOLLYWOOD MOVIE

Without a doubt, the Russian collusion hoax is, up to now, the greatest political scandal of all time. It was a coordinated effort by political actors, British intelligence and U.S. intelligence to overthrow the presidency of an American president. It needs to be officially exposed and accountability needs to be served on those who knew this was a hoax and continued to perpetuate this fraud for political purposes. 

It is documented that the FBI knew this was a fraud before Donald Trump was inaugurated, yet continued with this fraud for 2 1/2 years. This fraud may have started with political operatives in the Hillary Clinton campaign, but was aided by British intelligence, the FBI, CIA , and U.S. state department. There is plenty of documentation and we can be sure there will be a lot more when people are brought to justice for their knowingly being part of this hoax.

We can expect that this all will be labeled retribution, but justice is needed to expose this travesty in an effort to save the country in the long run, so something like this never happens again.

I expect many democrats will defend this hoax until their dying day, as it attempted to serve their purpose, and the media, many who knew it was a fabrication my never own up to their collaboration. 

This plot could become the biggest Hollywood Spy drama of all time. It involves countries, politicians, the media and a cast of hundreds at least. Many of the players are household names with deep political ties and histories. It could be a best selling movie production to expose this hoax to the world.

With possible director Mel Gibson and millions of dollars of funding available, it could be the number 1 production of the 21st century and a true historical story to boot.  A story that needs to be told as no other.

Pivotal point in Ukraine war.

 THERE IS A IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE OF DIRECTION

REALITY WILL OVERCOME WISHFUL THINKING

It is clear that things are changing concerning the Ukraine war. The Trump administration is exercising leadership by having the courage to lay out the reality of this conflict. The war cannot be won by Ukraine. Ukraine cannot regain the Crimea and the territory it has lost. The much hoped for advance by the Ukraine army during its counteroffensive and other campaigns has not put it in a better negotiating position.

The choices are to end it in the best way for Ukraine now, introduce western troops to the conflict line or let the conflict drag on until Ukraine loses Odessa, Kharkov and needs to engage in unconditional surrender.

Of the 3 choices, negotiating a peace plan now is the best option. The reality is Russia is in the dominating position. The U.S. is not going to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, that has been the policy of the U.S. forever. Without U.S participation there is no military victory for Ukraine. At the point of unconditional surrender, Ukraine will never be a prosperous country in the future, it will have lost all its resources and ports on the black sea. 

France and Uk hope to put troops into western Ukraine in an effort to free up Ukraine troops to go to the front line. This will not happen in a vacuum, they will become belligerents and be subject to attack. The U.S. is not going to commit to backing them up and get sucked into WW3.  

It seems that many look at this conflict as the only thing on the world plate of bag choices. It is only one and may be the easiest to come to a conclusion.

Much is made about the amount of money spent by the U.S..  Congress has appropriated $183 billion in aid to Ukraine. Then there is tens of billions spent by the CIA and the state department including $5 billion to aid in the 2014 Ukraine revolution. Then there was the agreement by the Biden administration to encourage the eastern European nations to gift all their T-72 tanks, Mig 29's and other soviet era equipment to Ukraine with the promise to replace it with U.S. equipment at a later date. Who knows how much that will come to, if those nations can convince Trump to honor that deal. So, Trump may be right with his $350 billion number, but no one actually knows the total.

Then there is the big picture of U.S. financial insecurity with massive debts and deficits that will not be dealt with without a lot of pain, this cannot be complicated with a bottomless pit of endless war. It seems many still believe that the U.S. can keep funding the world, it cannot. 

The reality is that financial crisis is on the immediate horizon and when it blows up Ukraine will most likely be the last thing on anyones mind. Surely the Democrats will use this as an opportunity to blame Trump. DOGE, tariffs and other tactics to stave off this likely financial crisis needs more unity and cooperation rather than hoping to continue in this path of endless war and irresponsible fiscal policy.

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.