Who won WW2 and who was the winner?

 POLITICAL NARRATIVE CAUSES DIVISION, EVEN ABOUT WW2

WHILE SOME REMEMBER VICTORY, OTHERS HATE CONTINUES

President Trump created controversy when he stated that the U.S. won WW2, he did add that the U.S. manufacturing capacity was a big part of that victory. The reality is that it was a joint victory and with any one part being absent the outcome could have been different.

The battle of Britain, primarily an air war, was instrumental in maintaining a base for the distribution of supplies from America to the allies.

The United States was indeed the "Arsenal of Democracy" and without that aid, particularly early in the war, the Germans massive and most productive industry in Europe would have been hard to beat. Eventually Britain was able to produce large amounts of aircraft and the Russians industry produced massive amounts of tanks and equipment.

As for the actual fighting and dying, the Soviet Union accounted for 80% of the german military deaths, estimated at 5 million, while losing a combined 26 million military and civilian deaths. 10 Million military and the rest from bombing, starvation and disease deaths. The German deaths on the western front were estimated at around 600,000 military and near 500,000 civilian casualties from bombing. Uk deaths 385,000, U.S, deaths in Europe 250,000. Polish deaths over 5 million. The facts don't lie, without the fact that the majority of war was fought on the eastern front and in effect that fighting crippled the German military machine, which allowed the western allies to build and prepare for the retaking of western Europe. I would wager that if there was no eastern front, there would not have been a D-day.

Yesterday we saw Russia celebrate in Moscow the 80th anniversary of the end of WW2. Many in the west opposed the celebration, even boycotted and forbid the mention of Russia in western countries, a sad display indeed. If not for the Russian effort they would all be speaking German.

The west still cannot understand the concern of Russia for its security on its western border. Some may call it paranoia, but it has experienced a history of western invasion, by France under Napoleon, The British in Crimea, the basis for the famous "Charge of the Light Brigade" and then the devastating damage from the Germans. These invasion are etched deeply on the combined memory of Russians.

You can decide who won the war, but the big winner from the war was the United States. Most of the world was devastated, it industrial capacity destroyed and only the U.S. stood untouched with a massive industrial capacity and its Gold Reserves swelling by 400 % from the payments from lend lease transactions with the allies.

It took at east 20 years for Japan, Germany and even Britain to recover. That was helped by U.S. aid in investment and protection, enabling that recovery.

Most of present day Americans have benefited from the U.S. standing in the world and the U.S. has thrived for most of the 20th century. The reality is that the U.S. has squandered its good reputation and its industry and it financial power with mismanagement and hubris and a lack of moral standing in its relations with much of the world in the last 30 years. 

The first step in regaining that standing is admitting its failures and its errors, without that recognition it will continue to have far greater problems in the future.

Houthi/U.S. Ceasefire?

 U.S. TO STOP BOMBING, HOUTHI TO STOP TARGETING U.S. SHIPS

NO MENTION OF HOUTHI ATTACKS ON ISRAEL

President Trump announced yesterday that the Houthis' and the U.S. have mediated a deal through Oman to end hostilities between the two countries. Goal seems to be to facilitate shipping through Suez canal. 

Before the U.S. intervention the Houthis were targeting ships destined for Israel, after the intervention no shipping was going through the Suez canal. 60 % of this traffic is headed for the Europe and one can expect they were also pressuring for an end to this conflict.

Of course, it is likely that both have incentives to abide by this agreement. The Houthis' were suffering damage to infrastructure and death to its citizens. The U.S. involvement was costing billions in limited ordinance that is in big demand and also needed for U.S. security. A continued conflict raised the possibility of eventually costing the U.S. the loss of a valuable ship and many lives. There is a growing reality that in today's use of modern missiles and drones, sea power is much more vulnerable than in the past.

This experiment was a learning experience to the U.S. that it is not as easy as in the past to project power through sea power. The Houthi seem to have developed a sophisticated missile program, what kind of problems would sea power have against a peer opponent? 

It seems there was no mention of Houthi attacks on Israel, It seems that Israel will now have to deal with this situation on their own. In fact they immediately conducted an attack on Yemen's airports in response to Houthi attacks on Israeli airports. Maybe they will now have to negotiate their own ceasefire.

Trump ends funding for "Gain of function" research overseas.

 U.S. RESEARCH UNDER REVIEW

IS THE U.S. THE LEADER IN THIS RESEARCH?

It is reported that President Trump has issued an executive order ending funding for "Gain of Function" research overseas. This research is an endeavor to aid in the ability of animal viruses to be able to infect humans. So far, I have yet to hear a reasonable excuse for the reason for this research.

President Obama made a similar effort to ban research in the United States, then the National Institute of Health funded the research in Wuhan, China, were it is  suspected that the Covid-19 virus leaked from the lab. Again, no one is willing to answer the big question, WHY is this research being conducted.

In the last year, a University in Boston made the statement that they had been successful in creating a much more deadly and more infectious strain of Covid virus, no explanation as to value of this research.

We also learned that the U.S. has operated dozens of Virus and communicable disease labs in Ukraine, near the Russian border. Again, never a real explanation as to what they are doing.

One must wonder if this country is still engaging in dangerous biological warfare or population control research?

While Trump's order bans funding for overseas labs, it does not ban funding for domestic research, but does put it under review, hopefully we will get some explanation of the purpose of this research.

I would hope that not only funding is ended but the research should be banned worldwide, it does not appear to have any positive impact on the human race, only the increased chance of another leak or possibly intended use of these agents for negative consequences for humanity.

The present money system is unsustainable.

 THE WORLD IS AWASH IN DEBT

FIAT CURRENCY ALWAYS ENDS IN DISASTER

It seems everyone and every country is in ever increasing debt. The United States, while not he worst offender, leads the world in overall debt. The total private and public debt has increased from $28.6 Trillion in 2000 to $93.5 Trillion in 2022. What has allowed the United States the ability to amass this debt is the fact the Dollar is the world's reserve currency. This situation was enabled by the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. At that time the dollar was considered, "as good as Gold" and was backed by actual silver and gold reserves. That came to an end in 1971 when the U.S. ended the gold backing. $1 dollar in 1971 is equivalent to $7.90 today an inflation rate of 689%.

There is no currency in the world today that is backed by anything of real value, this allows governments to produce as much currency as it feels it needs without any limit. 100 years ago, all currencies were backed by some amount of silver and gold. This present situation robs savers of their labor and encourages everyone to spend their earnings, rather than face higher prices in the future. Many today do not have any substantial savings, but large amounts of debt. The situation today is far worse than in 2008 when the last debt bust was encountered. In fact, the situation was prolonged by encouraging more debt both public and private to keep things going.

One of the problems is the systematic failure of Democratic Socialism to engage in responsible fiscal policy. Promises of more benefits, in exchange for votes has become the norm,  not only from the private sector, but defense contractors and others who have their hopes on government expenditures. There is an endless line of lobbyists with their hand out for some sort of government funding. It is unsustainable and no one has the fortitude to tackle this impending crisis.

The Bond market it he biggest market in the world, not energy or food or all commodities combined. The buying and selling of government and corporate debt is by far the biggest enterprise in the world. That alone should tell us that something is wrong with the present situation. The trading of worthless paper with the hope of repayment is were much of commerce exists today.

It can and will most likely all implode in the very near future. In the U.S. the interest on this debt will soon be the government's biggest expenditure. This coupled with much of the world organizing a separate system, not dependent on the dollar, because of this irresponsible behaviour, will be the downfall of the present system that cannot be sustained.

The real answer is a return to currency being redeemable in something of real value, this limits the ability of nations to engage in deficit spending, stops inflation and encourages saving.  Anyone who suggest asset backed currency is accused of retuning to this archaic system of the past and that it would be impossible. It is difficult and painful, but not impossible.

The alterative that is going to be offered is a Central bank digital currency, something without any real value, just a computer entry. The dream of all authoritarian governments, that can monitor, tax, confiscate and control all financial transactions.The end of all liberty, and the ability to resist oppression.

I suspect somewhere in the near future this idea will be attempted to be sold, as the answer to the coming crisis. 

Only changes of EU leadership can bring peace in Ukraine.

 THEY ARE ALL ON THE WAY OUT

NEW THINKING AND NEW APPROACH NEEDED

This weekend we see that the anti-war candidate has won convincingly in Romania. This after the EU voided the last election after the winner won 23% of the vote, the replacement candidate has won 40% of the vote. Romanian voters are beginning to understand that they do not want to become pawns in the west's war with Russia. 

In the UK, we see the reform candidates won a large number of seats and that the present 2 party system is declining in appeal, no wonder, when no matter who is in power the policy stays the same. Will they soon be locking up the leadership of the reform party?

France is on its way to outright civil war after removing Le Pen from the ability to run for election and now Germany wants to outlaw the leading opposition party AFD.

The smell of desperation is getting more intense with every damaging exertion of raw political power. Democracy is just a pleasant phrase, but not a reality.

Trump's window is closing on his ability to change U.S. policy that was at the root of the Ukraine war. He has some credibility since he is a new face, but the forces within are continuing to hamper any changes in U.S. foreign policy. Changes that are needed, if the U.S. is going to partake in the evolving global economic order.

Much is made of liberal globalist candidates winning in Canada and Australia, not surprising, they are still basically part of the British Commonwealth or Empire and have not realized their path is destined to fail.

The existing forces may prevail and control the western policies, but they will end in failure, they no longer have the industrial, economic or military power to control the world. If they continue to the point of failure, the future of the west will be far poorer without a recognition of a need for coexistence and cooperation.

Waltz, Kellogg, Ukraine mineral deal.

 WALTZ OUT, NO TO ATTACK ON IRAN

UKRAINE MINERAL DEAL, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Yesterday we hear that Mike Waltz, national security director was moved to Ambassador to the UN. It was no surprise, this was baked in after Waltz caused a big stir by having a reporter on his email chat. He and his associate are both out as of yesterday. Marco Rubio is going to temporarily take over his duties. One must believe this move is a silent NO, to attacking or supporting attacks on Iran. This move and the placing of more sanctions on Iran give more credence to the fact that Trump does not want to start a war with Iran and for good reason.

One must expect there will be other changes coming, one is Keith Kellogg who is supposed to be the Ukraine envoy, but seems to spending his time in Europe talking to the EU representatives and Ukraine with deals that are never going to be acceptable to Russia. This position is irrelevant, unless he is just to keep the Europeans hoping on a settlement that will insure their economic interests in Ukraine.

Then there is the much touted Ukraine mineral deal that both sides seem to have differing opinions what it means. Hopefully it will be more clear when it is made public.

Most of the areas were there are minerals are now under Russian control and it is very unlikely that situation will change. Trump considers this as a payment for past support, Ukraine that it insures future support. The reality is that it just looks like some sort of insurance to contest the UK's 100 year deal on the same minerals. It may also just be an attempt to show that some progress is being made, when in fact little is happening other than Russia continuing to move the conflict line steadily to the west.

The real situation is that there will not be a Ceasefire and that the motto,"As long as it takes" may eventually apply more to Russia than the west.

Israel/ Iran asymmetric war?

 WAR, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

IS MAJOR CONFRONTATION UNAVOIDABLE?

In the last week we have seen 2 major explosions in Iran, both having to do with military supplies. Iran was quick to describe these incidents as accidental, but many are speculating that is just some covert actions by Israel.

Now we see major fires all around Jerusalem and one must wonder if this is a retaliation for the incidents in Iran.

The reality is that Israel does desire a major confrontation with Iran, but only if it is backed up by the United States. One must wonder if Israel is hoping for a response from Iran that will give Israel an excuse to attack Iran. 

Provocations from Israel like the assassination in Tehran of a Hamas leader on inauguration day in Iran, that Iran let go without a response, lead some to speculate that Iran is weak and afraid to respond to Israel. Others have a different opinion and believe that Iran is not going to take the bait and attack Israel, because it is indeed well prepared and feels time is on it side.

Iran is well connected with Russia and China as a pivotal part of the BRICS economic group, because of its geographic location for trade between the major BRICS countries. We can expect that there is communication and council that time is on the side of Iran. 

Israel has squandered its opportunity for global sympathy and support by its response to the Hamas attack near 2 years ago, It is still engaged in military action, serious domestic division, a floundering economy and a decline in population as this crisis continues. One may say that Israel took, the soon irrelevant, Hamas bait and is now in a unsustainable situation. Iran will evade a conflict with the U.S.and Israel as long as possible. Will Israel have to be blatant in its attacks to get a response and are they sure that Iran does not have the capability to do severe damage to their country?

It seems that Israel may feel that only war with Iran will end this situation. There doesn't seem to be any peaceful resolution possible and sadly military action will unlikely change the situation in the long run. It is the classic dilemma that leads to major war, a war with no winners in the end.