GEOPOLITICAL STRUGGLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: OIL, ZIONISM, AND U S HEGEMONY

20 February 2025

Geopolitical Struggle in the Middle East:

Oil, Zionism and US hegemony

https://youtu.be/Jk60uxkoDO4?si=kMsFlEh6ZESBOznO

Op-ed on this video "7 wars in 5 years".

This video is resumed at the end of this article.

The chaos in the Middle East over the past several decades is not a random series of conflicts, but a structured geopolitical strategy driven by three overlapping forces: America’s need to control Middle Eastern oil, Israel’s Zionist vision for Greater Israel, and the fundamental clash between sea and land powers as described by the father of geopolitics Mackinder and followers such as Spykman, and later by DebtCycle economist Ray Dalio. Understanding these drivers helps to explain the long-term instability, endless wars, and the inability of the West to establish lasting peace in the region.

1. America’s Strategic Need to Control Middle East Oil

Since World War II, the United States' global dominance has been built on the Petrodollar system—the agreement that oil is traded in U.S. dollars, which gives America financial leverage over the world economy. Any challenge to this system is seen as an existential threat to U.S. hegemony.

• Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex: Controlling oil means controlling global trade, as modern economies are dependent on fossil fuels. The U.S. has repeatedly intervened militarily to secure its grip on Middle Eastern oil—from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (1953) to the Iraq War (2003)

• Energy as a Weapon: America has systematically destabilised energy-producing nations that threaten its dominance, such as Libya (which sought an independent gold-backed currency for oil), Iraq (which shifted to the Euro for oil sales), and Iran (which has sought to bypass the dollar through China and Russia)

• Pipeline Politics: The wars in Syria and Iraq were not just about regime change; they were about controlling pipeline routes that dictate whether energy flows east to China and Russia or west through U.S.-controlled allies.

By keeping the Middle East divided and unstable, the U.S. ensures that no independent regional power can challenge its petrodollar empire.

2. Israel’s Zionist Plan for a Greater Israel

While America’s primary interest in the Middle East is economic and strategic, Israel’s interest is territorial and ideological. The Zionist project, particularly under Netanyahu, follows a long-term plan to fragment and weaken its neighbours, a strategy outlined in the 1996 policy paper "A Clean Break".

• The "Seven Wars in Five Years" Plan: The U.S. neoconservative movement, aligned with Israeli interests, sought to dismantle and overthrow seven Middle Eastern governments that supported Palestinian resistance. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan were all targeted

• Expanding Israeli Borders: By eliminating strong Arab states, Israel ensures that it remains the only dominant military power in the region

• Perpetual Destabilisation: Israel benefits from a Middle East in permanent crisis, as it prevents Arab states from uniting against Israeli expansion.

This strategy aligns with America’s broader geopolitical interests but has deepened the cycle of violence and made regional peace nearly impossible.

3. The Clash Between Sea Power (U.S.) and Land Power (Eurasia)

Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and Spykman’s Rimland Theory provide the strategic framework for understanding U.S. interventions. America, as a maritime hegemon, seeks to prevent any land-based power from unifying Eurasia.

What is important is control of the trade routes abroad, and a balance of payment surplus at home. If shared wisely, this will produce a broad-based prosperity and popular satisfaction at home.

A sea power hegemon uses its navy to control world shipping routes and ports, and these days space too. It contacts land powers only at the coast, the rimland. But for land powers, transport and trade across land means crossing borders and thus requires cooperation (banditry doesn't work). A sea power will foment insurrection to break up land powers in the hinterland and frustrate alternative trade routes. It will not allow local powers to dominate, but instead will seek to form alliances with peripheral rim states in order to contain the land powers. Think first island ring.

• Sea Powers (Colonial, Extractive, Disruptive): The U.S. and Britain have historically acted as sea-based empires, controlling global trade routes and using divide-and-rule strategies to weaken land-based rivals. Their interests are fundamentally colonial—extracting resources, imposing debt-based economies, and ensuring that no rival power becomes self-sufficient. The tendency is initially to the extraction of raw materials and industrialisation and a philosophy of free trade, then to outsource and globalise and assemble, finally to financialise the process with options, derivatives and buybacks, to federate by taking down borders in areas they control and treat people as interoperable economic units, regardless of culture.

• Land Powers (Collaborative, Self-Sustaining, Anti-Imperialist): In contrast, land-based empires like Russia, Iran, and China seek to create stability and cooperation through trade and physical infrastructure (e.g., China’s Belt and Road Initiative). This is why the U.S. has consistently targeted land-based alliances in the Middle East. The tendency of land powers, "mother earth", is to less alienating ways of generating wealth and more conservative human values.

• The Axis of Resistance: Countries like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen form what is known as the "Axis of Resistance." They seek regional self-determination, rejecting U.S.-Israeli control over the region’s resources and policies.

The Middle East is a critical battleground between these two forces:

1. The U.S. and Israel seek to weaken and fragment nations to maintain dominance.

2. Russia, China, and Iran seek stability, integration, and cooperation.

America’s ultimate fear is that the Middle East will pivot toward Eurasia, integrating into BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the growing multipolar world led by China and Russia.

4. America at the End of the 80-Year Debt Cycle (Ray Dalio)

Ray Dalio’s Debt Cycle Theory explains how great powers rise and fall based on their economic management. Unlike Mackinder and Spykman, who focused on geopolitical strategy, Dalio looks at long-term economic patterns and how financial mismanagement leads to imperial decline.

• The U.S. is in the Late Stage of Its Debt Cycle:

o Historically, dominant powers follow a pattern: they expand, accumulate wealth, overextend themselves through debt and military spending, and then decline.

o The U.S. has relied on financial markets, the petrodollar, and military interventions to maintain its position, rather than productive economic investment at home

• The Middle East Wars Are a Sign of Economic Weakness:

o initially, there was almost 0 income tax in the U. Yes. The government educated its people and helped with support on health and housing, from corporate taxes. Then, as debts built up and the gold standard was abandoned, government "privatised" this network (think student loans) claiming this organisation was socialist. Result: profits surged whilst wages stagnated, leaving people anxious as to how they were going to pay these additional formerly collectevised burdens. Instead of strengthening its economy through industrial or technological innovation and worker support, the U.S. has used military intervention as a tool to maintain global financial dominance and it has privatised its network support functions.

o Oil control, currency dominance, and war-driven profits have become the main economic engines of U.S. hegemony—classic signs of a declining power relying on force instead of innovation

• The Shift to a Multipolar Financial System:

o As Dalio explains, when great powers accumulate too much debt and lose economic competitiveness, their currency and financial influence wane.

o The rise of China, BRICS, and de-dollarisation efforts, alternative payment systems and currencies, signal that the global financial order is moving away from U.S. dominance

• Military Overreach and Imperial Decline:

o The U.S. has tried to delay economic collapse through military expansion, just as previous empires (e.g., Britain, Rome, the Ottomans) did in their final stages.

o But military power alone cannot sustain an empire when the economic foundation is crumbling.

In essence, while Mackinder and Spykman explain why the U.S. needs to control Eurasia, Dalio explains why its economic system is failing, forcing it to rely on desperate and unsustainable military interventions. The financial decline of the U.S. is now colliding with its geopolitical ambitions, creating a dangerous phase where economic desperation fuels reckless foreign policy, leaving the world in fear of nuclear war..

Conclusion: A Losing Strategy

The U.S. and Israel have spent decades redrawing the Middle East through war, but their strategy is failing.

• They have not created stable client states, only endless insurgencies and failed states and are now extracting wealth from their enemies using sanctions and confiscation,  and from their competitors and allies (vassals) through protectionist policies

• Their enemies (Iran, Russia, China) have only grown stronger

• The "Axis of Resistance" is now more organised and militarily capable than ever

• The U.S. economy is in decline, and it can no longer sustain perpetual war.

The fundamental issue is that sea powers like the U.S. thrive on chaos, while land powers like China and Russia thrive on cooperation. Although china seems to be the main threat, the Middle East is at the heart of this struggle. If the U.S. and Israel continue their current strategy, they will only further weaken themselves, further alienate the region, and only accelerate the rise of the new multipolar world order that they fear, but that seems to be emerging around BRICS.

The future is not in war and destruction, but in regional integration, economic cooperation, and the end of Western imperial control over the Middle East. If Washington and Tel Aviv refuse to adapt, they will find themselves isolated in a world that is no longer willing to accept their hegemony.

=====

Jeffrey Sachs on Israel’s strategy that destroyed the Middle East

This article above is based off an interesting youtube video from Jeffrey Sachs:

https://youtu.be/Jk60uxkoDO4?si=g6d4eZUyJEuD2bzW

In this, Jeffrey Sachs presents a historical and geopolitical critique of Western interventions in the Middle East, arguing that these actions have led to chaos, endless war, and destruction rather than peace or stability. His analysis ties together several themes:

1. Systematic Destabilisation of the Middle East

• Sachs argues that U.S., British, and Israeli foreign policies have not only failed to bring peace but have actively destabilised the region

• He attributes this chaos to a long-term strategy initiated in the late 1990s and early 2000s to remake the Middle East by force, a policy largely shaped by neoconservative ideology and Israeli strategic interests.

2. The "Seven Wars in Five Years" Plan

• Sachs references a claim made by General Wesley Clark, who revealed that shortly after 9/11, a classified U.S. military plan outlined the overthrow of seven Middle Eastern governments within five years. These included:

o Iraq

o Syria

o Iran

o Lebanon

o Libya

o Somalia

o Sudan

• The idea was that by removing regimes hostile to Israel and U.S. influence, the region could be reconstructed in a way that aligns with Western and Israeli strategic interests.

3. The Role of Netanyahu and the Neocons

• Sachs criticises Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a driving force behind this strategy, citing his 1996 paper "A Clean Break" and his post-9/11 speech in Washington

• In this speech, Netanyahu advocated not just fighting terrorists but destroying the states that support them—an idea that became central to U.S. and Israeli policy

• According to Sachs, this vision has led to perpetual war, as the destruction of one state (e.g., Iraq) only creates the conditions for further conflicts (e.g., Syria, Libya, and now possibly Iran).

4. Consequences of U.S. and Israeli Policy

• Sachs lists multiple cases where Western-led or Western-backed interventions have resulted in complete state collapse, including:

o Iraq (2003-present): Ongoing instability, sectarian violence, and failed attempts at nation-building.

o Libya (2011-present): NATO-backed overthrow of Gaddafi led to a failed state and ongoing civil war.

o Syria (2011-present): U.S. and Israeli-backed efforts to topple Assad have left the country fractured and war-torn.

o Sudan and South Sudan: U.S.-engineered partition led to internal chaos, economic ruin, and famine.

o Somalia: U.S. interventions and proxy wars have left the country a permanent failed state

• Sachs shows how none of these interventions have led to peace, only war and more war.

5. The Greater Israel Strategy

• Sachs claims that Israel's long-term goal is territorial expansion, using U.S. military and financial support to weaken and fragment neighbouring states

• He points to Israel’s annexation efforts in the West Bank and its repeated military incursions into Lebanon and Syria as part of this larger strategy

• He also highlights Israel's recent military actions in Syria as a sign of escalation.

6. The BRICS Alternative: A Multipolar World

• Sachs contrasts the Western interventionist model with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which focuses on economic development rather than military force

• He argues that BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are seeking a multipolar world rather than one dominated by the U.S

• He criticises the Western concept of a "rules-based order" as merely a cover for U.S. global hegemony.

Conclusion

Sachs presents a damning critique of Western foreign policy, arguing that:

1. The U.S. and its allies (particularly Israel and Britain) have pursued a deliberate strategy of perpetual war in the Middle East

2. This strategy has not succeeded in bringing stability or democracy, but has instead resulted in state collapse, mass suffering, and ongoing war

3. A multipolar world, led by China’s economic model and BRICS cooperation, offers a better alternative to endless Western military intervention.

Sachs ultimately sees the U.S.-Israeli neoconservative agenda as reckless and unsustainable, warning that continued intervention will only lead to further war and destruction.

Read More

IS TRUMP THE MOST INSANE OF LEADERS EVER

13 February 2025

Imagine a group of regulars meet in a local bar and appoint the maddest of the group to be their spokesman, and that the local town hall agrees to give this spokesman total and complete power over the town for the next four years.

It seems to me that it's not as far fetched as we might imagine.

From the trivial to the serious, we seem to have another madman in charge of America. 

He wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico. He wants to make Canada the fifty first state. He wants to buy greenland even if Denmark doesn't want to sell. He wants ukraine to give america half a trillion dollars in return for continued support. He wants to walk away from Ukraine. He invites Netanyahu to renege on the ceasefire agreement. He wants to cleanse Gaza of Palestinians and turn it into a holiday resort. He wants to impose secondary sanctions on Russia.

Those are truly out-of-the-bar ideas - by what authority can he announce this agenda to the world? It seems often like spur of the moment stuff dreamt-up at an interview on Air Force One.

He's the guy who thought North Korea would become his next best friend. He walked away from the JCPOA. He wants to take the ICC to court. He has quit the WHO and Paris accord.  He has slapped 25% tariffs on steel and alu imports.

His MAGA agenda looks like a mad arsonist, a narcissist whose only interest is to keep attention focused on himself.

How is any of Trump's agenda better than that of that senile old f**l who preceded him?

I don't know what proceeding centuries on planet Earth were like, but definitely the 21st century looks to me utterly insane!

What happened to public accountability or debate? Where are our representatives in all this decision-making process? Isn't what we are living through totalitarianism rather than democracy? Where is the voice of the people, even "his" people?

Read More

GEOPOLITICS AND THE PRICE OF GOLD & PROPERTY

12 February 2025

What happens to economies at the outbreak of war

Every time a war starts, stock markets collapse, there's capital controls, price and wage controls & rent freezes, there's rationing.

This is behind my feeling that markets have reached the top. 

             Has VHVG peaked at 92.30?

What affects the price of gold

There's three main factors that correlate to the price of gold (see an earlier article, here), and according to long run analysis, gold is seriously overvalued by about 25 or 30% at the moment. 

The rise of geopolitical risk

It is not just the threat of inflation and tariffs that is pushing gold to all time hires. Largely untalked about, but geopolitical risk and the certainty that the west has lost in ukraine, and that the middle east is out of control, needs a heavy weighting at this time. Central Banks and Investors are pulling out of equities and paper derivatives of markets, they're unhappy with government bonds or should be as they're based on fiat currency which collapses with printing and inflation, and they're putting their money into things solid, things physical.... Perhaps banks will do well if interest rates have to rise to protect the currency, but commodities really could rise as manufacturing needs to continue in a war economy, though it's true that a following recession would dampen demand.

Trump's policies

So it's the uncertainty, the unpredictable irrationality, that Trump the aging narcissist creates and thrives upon, that's driving capital flows out of unsafe maxed-out assets and into these different physical asset classes: 

- Gold & Silver → Best safe-haven assets during war & geopolitical risk

- Oil & Gas → Strongest performers if war affects major producers

- Wheat & Agriculture → Food commodities spike in supply-chain disruptions

- Industrial Metals → Short-term gains, long-term risks if recession follows.

Maybe mag7 earnings will continue to please on the upside... But what if they don't?

Can this uncertainty be mitigated away

I don't think this uncertainty is going to get mitigated away this year and I don't think change is unfolding in favour of Western markets. I mean, Trump is not simply tinkering with the system as new governments normally do. We are looking at major disruption, transformative change, big idea change - with little evidence of forethought and planning. The deep state that pushes across the decades for coherence and continuity, seems to have gone in America at least, Trump has overcome it, and that just leaves the Fed as the only consistent attempt to manage all this.

Factor's holding back the price of gold

If the risk of war seems to be driving the price of gold, what might work against the rise of gold?

Capital controls are governments trying to prevent a run on their currency. In the case of gold, I imagine that governments would oblige holders of these - and probably all assets - to register their holdings centrally. A national wealth inventory, a register of who owns what, that goes beyond financial numbers in the banks and into the physical holdings of the people.

This would be a further development of the cashless economy.

And after that? Once they've got everything you own on a central register, they'd tokenise it, meaning there'd be quotas, meaning there'd be taxes and confiscations, or at the least, you wouldn't be able to buy gold anymore.

I don't understand digital gold, but take care because war creates uncertainty and volatility in property prices:

- Local wars cause prices to collapse locally

- Global wars drive investors to safe-haven real estate markets like London and Edinburgh

- Higher inflation & interest rates can depress housing demand

- Supply chains start to fail, construction costs rise, new supply is hit, this could be expected to support prices in those stable markets.

Read More

VLODIMIR ZELENSKI IS THE GRETA THUNBERG OF GEOPOLITICS

11 February 2025

WHY VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY IS THE GRETA THUNBERG OF GEOPOLITICS

To many observers, Volodymyr Zelensky bears more than a passing resemblance to Greta Thunberg—not in appearance, but in the way both have become global symbols of moral urgency. Supporters see Thunberg as the unfiltered voice of climate activism, just as they view Zelensky as the embodiment of Ukrainian resilience in the face of Russian aggression. Both have exhibited characteristics that some associate with autism spectrum disorders: Greta Thunberg is open about her Asperger’s diagnosis, while a few commentators—rightly or wrongly—have speculated that Zelensky’s focused, intense communication style might stem from a similar place. Whether that speculation has any merit is debated; official statements do not confirm it, and he has never publicly admitted to being on the spectrum.

Critics, however, are far less enthusiastic. Unlike Thunberg, whose adversaries primarily complain about her youth or her uncompromising stance on fossil fuels, Zelensky has been thrust into a geopolitical maelstrom that he himself helped escalate. Some voices insist that, after Joe Biden, Zelensky bears the greatest responsibility for pushing the conflict with Russia instead of seeking compromise—effectively locking Ukraine into a prolonged and devastating war that have sent hundreds of thousands of citizens of Ukraine and the flower of its youth to an early grave. For these detractors, the once-rousing speeches and global fundraising tours are no more than a PR offensive distracting from the suffering on the ground of the Ukrainian people while enriching Zelinski and his coterie of perhaps the most corrupt oligarchy in the world.

Further, some say Zelensky, a former comedian and initially a likable political outsider, has lost international goodwill by aligning closely and so evidently, with American goals to preserve its hegemony., Europe's hatred of Russia dating from the times of Napoleon and Hitler, and NATO interests. His decisions have put Ukraine in the deepest peril, reshaping a conflict that might have been contained under a different leadership approach, one based on neutrality and respect the interests of russian speakers in what was a pluralistic country. Just as not everyone appreciates Thunberg’s impassioned calls to “panic,” the Ukrainian president’s dogged appeals for more money, arms and sanctions have sickened those who believe his strategy prolongs the crisis.

In the end, Zelensky’s role in Ukraine’s struggle echoes Thunberg’s climate activism: both wield a moral narrative that does inspire millions, yet also provokes fierce backlash from those Western minorities who read the independent press. Whether seen as heroic figure or polarising agitator, each has come to personify a cause driven by unwavering conviction, yes, but far from universally admired.

Read More

TRUMP'S TARIFFS AND THE PRICE OF GOLD

11 February 2025

I feel the markets might have put in highs for the year.

Markets don't like tariffs, especially when they could be symmetrical.

Trump's just announced 25% on iron an aluminium, "to level up the playing field". 

It's the purchaser in the US who pays that tariff, so 

will suppliers eat the tariff i.e. lower their sale price?

No, they will get together and find a counter tariff or quota. 

Will the American companies buying iron and steel for their products, such as construction companies, "eat" their profit i e absorb the tariff?

Maybe they'll have to 

Or will they pass the profit on to end-users, the consumers, the americans who consume their products?

Quite possibly, and this would be inflationary.

Trump has explained his idea, that in the medium term at least, the companies producing abroad will onshore, 

but there's no "system test environment" in which to trial his ideas 

and in production, there are so many moving parts that one slip and everything could easily go belly up.

It is this uncertainty, added to 

- debt levels approaching and above one hundred percent of GDP that risk crashing the currency or the economy

- Growing threats of communitarianism, which means instead of integrating in a pluralist society, we have groups that are splitting and dogmatically taking positions against other groups, and 

- the extremely serious global geopolitical risks.

These are the three fundamental risks, to which we now add 

- a tariff war, 

that are driving the price of gold. 

I don't think that countries that are in a balance of payment surplus feel very confident putting their money into dollars any more.

They need to keep some dollars in a reserve account for foreign trade, which is still largely in dollars.

But a country like China is just going to put its trillion dollar profit from last year into its belt and road initiative (BRI) in the form of loans to participating countries.

And these surplus countries will just further stock up on gold.

And incidentally, they will drain the London bullion vaults, arrange for their goal to be repatriated, for fear that it's all paper, that it have disappeared!!!

"It's only when the tide goes out, as Warren Buffet said, that you see those who are swimming naked."

Read More

GAZA - TRUMP'S REAL PLAN

11 February 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEOM

Redevelop as Holiday Resort

Saudi and other arab countries have very large populations of unemployed young people who, even if you offer them a job, are not interested.

The Palestinians are a very smart population cut from the same semite stone as the jews. 

America and Israel having bombed the strip to ruins and continue into the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and Syria, have fundamentally disrupted Palestine, leaving it in gaping need of profound transformation.

Why not move the entire population to Neom, which is having tremendous development problems. They'd make a very smart middle and working slave class.

And honour the promise to move them back if they so wish after the strip has been redeveloped as a resort. Ha ha.

The Art of the Deal

From what I gather from Alastair Crooke, this is not how to read Trump's latest blinder.

It is all another example of Trump's shocking "art of the deal'. 

He began with retweeting that highly critical assessment from Jeffrey Sachs, humiliating and belittling Netanyahu. He continued the humiliation with that shock announcement Friday, without any prior discussion. 

He has said this is what America will do : take ownership of the land and redevelop it as a resort. He knows very well that it's completely impossible without international agreement. UN?... I dont think so.

But he will in effect offer Arab countries the option of

a fair redevelopment (whatever that means) of this uninhabitable building site, in exchange for joining the Abraham Accords.

The Art of the Deal. Very imaginative.

Note from Wiki article

"Despite historically antagonistic relations, Israel is speculated to have a major role in the development of NEOM, with some suggesting that Saudi Arabia could be expressing an interest in Israeli intellectual capability to this end. Israel is suggested to have also reciprocated this. In line with this, Saudi Arabia is said to hope to establish an economic partnership with Israel to promote economic development of Neom. In particular, analysts suggest that Saudi Arabia may be interested in improved economic relations with high-tech industries in Israel required for the technological vision of Neom. According to a report in an Israeli newspaper, there is supposedly evidence of coordination between Arab businessmen and diplomats in Tel Aviv, with companies in Israel said to be ready to secure billions of dollars worth of contracts. The Saudi Arabian government is also supposedly involved in such communications. As such, analysts have suggested Neom as a potential impetus for normalisation between Saudi and Israel."

Read More

THE DISRUPTORS

8 February 2025

The disruptors. How the world really works: more developments in politics and economics.

Debt and destiny

Interesting youtube video that I found while updating my series" "How the world really works".

It also happens that Ramin Nakisa has made a video on debt death spiral.

1. European Elites and American Interests

European elites prioritise American interests, especially in areas like defense and foreign affairs, over those of their own citizens, leading to economic difficulties at home and ultimately to a situation where the public come to mistrust and even abhor their representatives.

2. French Government Bond Yields

In late 2024, French government bond yields briefly surpassed those of certain high-grade corporate bonds and even matched or exceeded Greek 10-year bond yields. The cause is concerns about France's fiscal health and political stability.

And so Macron proposes sending French troops into Ukraine, and when they get annihilated who is going to lend to a government at war with Russia and one that cannot control its own money? Macron is very lucky that this never happened in public at least, as otherwise French government yields would have gone through the roof in a runaway debt death spiral.

Western government debt is a Ponzi scheme where governments borrow new money in order to repay old maturing debt. Wars and sanctions and confiscations simply further expose governments to rising yield demands from the bond markets. The line on the government's budget for "payment of interest on national debt" rises to the top of the list, and after that, what next?:

Austerity & Fiscal Reforms, Debt Monetisation ie Printing money to pay off debt, Default / Restructuring, Bailouts from eg the IMF or EU.

And after that?

When peacemeal reform will no longer work, the disruptors step in.

3. Macron's Response to 2024 Election Results

Despite the 2024 European Parliament and French Legislative Elections favouring the left and right over Macron's centre, rather than resign, President Macron pushed for a minority centrist government. He appointed Michel Barnier as Prime Minister to lead this very much minority government. A move that was seen as sidelining the electoral gains of both left and right. 

The left - he had united tham against an imagined anti-republican front. 

The National Rally - the RN itself was labelled far right without justification. "Far" (far right or far left) means people or parties who reject democratic politics and take to the streets. 

Macron's first Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, a former EU wheel, attempted to redress the country's fiscal imbalance, but was defeated in the Assembly and resigned. Macron's second (and last) hope, François Bayrou, just scraped through with the same austerity budget last Wednesday.

4. Western Debt, Wars, and Governance

The West is experiencing an "end-of-Empire" scenario, characterised by high debt, ongoing external conflicts, and governance challenges at home. France exemplifies these issues. Europe, particularly Germany, is committing economic suicide in fact - why, for example, can't Germany turn on Nordstream 2?

5. Global Discontent with Elites

There's a growing public discontent with globalist elites across the Western world, driven by issues like electoral malpractice ( the subject of a recent post here on this blog), public debt, deficits, uncontrolled immigration, and ongoing murderous foreign conflicts.

These issues have produced increasingly radicalised support for populist movements and leaders, of left and right, who challenge the established order. Concerns over fiscal mismanagement, immigration policies and prolonged costly military engagements, have fueled public dissatisfaction, prompting calls for root and branch, systemic, political and economic reforms.

Overall, Western governments appear to their citizens to be wasteful, corrupt, unaccountable and thus ... vulnerable. In this unstable situation, bond markets will only ask for higher interest rate returns.

The dollar's cushion is that it is the world's reserve currency. Foreign chancellos need stores of u s dollars to facilitate trade, which is denominated, still largely in US dollars. but despite initial hopes, the euro is not a reserve currency, though it is part of DXY (U.S. Dollar Index - a measure of the U.S. dollar against a basket of major currencies).

6. UK Political Landscape and Nigel Farage

Disillusionment with traditional parties has led to a surge in support for disruptors. In the UK, Nigel Farage and his Reform Party are now top of the polls.

Never in modern history has a UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, sunk so low in the polls. The electorate is so totally cynical and alienated.

Unlike the Conservatives and Labour, Nigel Farage challenges the status quo, he is a disruptor. He reshapes debates on issues like Brexit, immigration, and national sovereignty. His populist, anti-establishment rhetoric contrasts strongly with the faded institutional, pragmatic, more technical approaches of the main parties.

7. Donald Trump's Approach to Global Issues

Despite being a controversial figure, Donald Trump acknowledges global problems and proposes solutions that resonate with the public, such as his recent plan for Gaza -  which, though horrendous, opens public debate on this longstanding issue. In my opinion, Trump clearly points the finger at Netanyahu and the zionists generally, for achieving absolutely nothing but death and destruction in all this time since 1948.

In his first two weeks back in office, President Donald Trump the disruptor, has prioritised several key issues:

Immigration and Border Security. The Pentagon is deploying thousands of active-duty soldiers to the southern border, and has begun deporting millions of illegal immigrants.

Trade Policy. To slay the twin dragons of balance of payments deficit and public debt, Trump signed executive orders imposing 25% tariffs on all goods from Mexico and Canada, (relaxed since imposition on 4 February following compliance) 10% on China.

Some tariffs are intended to correct the misbehaviour of governments sending immigrants and drugs illegally into the United States. While other tariffs are aimed at redressing a competitive imbalance and at encouraging foreign manufacturers to set up factories in the US.

Foreign Policy and International Relations. President Trump signed an executive order authorising sanctions against the ICC, citing its actions as "illegitimate and baseless" for targeting the U.S. and Israel. The sanctions include freezing assets and imposing travel bans on ICC staff and their families involved in investigating U.S. citizens and allies. This surely marks the end of the International Order set up after the last war.

On 20 January, America quit the Paris Accords on Climate Change, and the same day, the WHO. The withdrawal processes are expected to take one year, during which the U.S. will cease funding and collaboration. As the largest contributor, America's departure leaves both organisations in a financial tailspin.. 

Executive Authority and Legal Challenges. Indeed, Trump has issued numerous executive orders, including attempts to limit birthright citizenship and remove independent agency heads. These actions are creating major legal challenges to the Supreme Court. Trump's strategy for draining the swamp this time around is simply to sack all those he opposes or who opposed him during Biden's time in office, and put in place 4,000 top supporters into 4,000 top positions, as defined in "The Purple Book".

Education Policy. The administration has directed the federal Education Department to support state-level school choice programs, aiming to reduce the influence of unions on public schools. He has directed that all DEI programs be cancelled wherever found, that USAID be shut and that there are only two genders in the United States: male and female.

Read More

HAS THE WORLD CHANGED SINCE 24 FEBRUARY 2022

6 February 2025

The Decline of the West,

by Oswald Spengler

SUMMARY

It might seem obvious, but it’s worth stating clearly: we’re entering—indeed, we’ve already entered—a completely new world. Consider the following points:

1. Western Preeminence Diminishing

Since 1492, the West has dominated the globe. After five centuries of unrivalled influence, that preeminence is now fading.

2. Conflict Returns to Europe

Europe is no longer at peace. We’re witnessing a renewed era of nations fighting within Europe—an upheaval few foresaw.

3. Superpower Confrontations

For the past 80 years, there has been no direct military confrontation between superpowers. Yet today, America is at war with Russia and seemingly heading toward conflict with China.

4. Cultural and Value Systems in Flux

Setting aside DEI as a possible short-lived phenomenon, we see our traditional Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Enlightenment heritage—emphasising individual rights, secular governance, and the rule of law—challenged by Islamic values, which are just as diverse and equally valid but derived from the Qur’an and Hadith, focusing on community, religious morality, and social justice.

5. Shifting Atlantic Alliance

For 80 years, Europe and America stood as equal partners in an Atlantic alliance. Now, Europe increasingly feels like a vassal to an American empire, reliant on a waning NATO umbrella. The bitter, decades-long (potentially centuries-long) rift with Russia leaves Europe dealing with a “cesspool” in Ukraine right on its doorstep.

6. Russia’s Pivot to Asia

Historically an Asiatic power that aspired to join Europe since the 18th century—echoed in Helsinki 1975, Gorbachev’s “common European home,” and Putin’s early attempts to partner with NATO and the EU—Russia now finds itself pushed out of Europe. Through what many see as the West’s own shortsightedness, Russia, with its abundant energy, food, and mineral resources, is driven into the arms of China, a formidable rival to the West. Where Russia might have become an enduring friend and economic partner, it is instead cast as an adversary.

7. Rise of Multipolar Power

It’s not that the West has simply lost power; rather, the rest of the world—once colonised or overshadowed—has caught up. Now we no longer hold a singularly dominant position; power is dispersed among many centres. Exploring how this came about and where it leads us is another grand story worth telling.

DETAIL

It might feel pretty obvious, but it still needs to be said and understood that we are entering - and are already in - a completely new world. Just consider the following.

The most obvious and topical is that the West has dominated the planet since 1492, but is now losing its preeminence after five hundred years.

Another enormous change is that we are now fighting each other in Europe, Europe is no longer at peace.

Furthermore, there have been 80 years with no military confrontation between superpowers, but now we have America at war with Russia and seeking conflict with China.

As to internal social cohesion and putting aside DEI which looks to be a passing phenomenon with the return to merit-based equality, our values drawn from Greek, Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Enlightenment legacies, promoting individual rights, secular governance, and the rule of law, are being challenged by Islamic values, similarly diverse, equally valid but different, originating from the Qur’an and Hadith, emphasising community, religious morality, and social justice.

Another big change. We've enjoyed 80 years of the Atlantic Alliance, but as where this started off with Europe and America as equal partners, we now feel we are vassals of an American empire and that the NATO umbrella and America's interest in Europe is on the wane, leaving us with a bitter relationship with Russia that will endure decades, and maybe centuries, huge economic consequences and the cesspool that is Ukraine bubbling away in our midst.

Another massive change is that Russia, which is an Asiatic power who wanted to belong to Europe since the 18th century and going right up to a Helsinki, 1975 and Gorbachev's "common European home", and Putin, who initially wanted Russia to join NATO and the EU but was rebuffed, has now, with its abundant supplies of energy, food and minerals, and entirely through the West's fault, been driven out of Europe and into the arms of China, a very serious competitor to the West, which includes Europe of course. Russia is now our adversary and our enemy, where once it could have been an eternal friend and economic partner. Instead of shutting down NATO after the cold war, it, NATO, found a new role, under american leadership, re badging the former pawns of the Soviet empire.

In sum, it's not so much that the West has lost its power, but more that the rest of the world that we colonised has caught up with us and is overtaking us, so that where once we were the pre-eminent power, there are now many centres of power.... How that came about and where the world is going is another great story worth the telling.

Read More

THE FAILURE OF AMERICA TO DOMINATE THE WORLD ISLAND

6 February 2025

There's an awful lot of column inches written and hours talked on YouTube explaining why The West hates Russia and more particularly why The West chose confrontation and block politics after the cold war, over what's called 'indivisible security': the 1975 Helsinki Agreement and later a joint security architecture for a common European home, proposed by Gorbachov.

The best explanation goes to Mackinder, who characterised the World Island as being home to a struggle for survival and dominance between a land power and sea power. 

Mackinder's 1904 paper, "The Geographical Pivot of History" pretty much created geography and geopolitics as a new discipline. His Heartland Theory argues that whoever controls the "World Island" (which is Eurasia) controls global power, and that there's a history of struggle between sea powers (maritime empires) and land powers (continental empires).

There's academic lead-up for this in the form of writings by Thucydides, Clausewitz and Alfred Thayer Mahan ( love to read them one day).

If you look at any map of the world with Greenwich at the centre, there are the Americas on the left; Asia, Europe and Africa on the right; and huge Greenland stuck between the two.

So there's geography and history behind his theory, as well as previous academic work.

But you don't need Mackinder to tell you that - just from looking at a map, Russia is far and away the biggest country in Europe, well the biggest part of its population is in Europe and its stuffed with the richest resources in the world, food energy and minerals, stretching all the way east to Vladivostok.

Then there's The North European Plain that stretches roughly from northern France across Belgium, the Netherlands, northern Germany, Poland and into western Russia.... All the Russian army needs to do is put on its skis and skate down into Western Europe and then take over Central Europe.

(Not that this has happened - after the invasions by Napoleon and Hitler, Russia moved into Central Europe, 'strue, in a move aimed at security rather than invasion.)

Putin's original idea was that Russia should be absorbed into NATO and the EU. But instead, The West thought they had won the cold war and decided on NATO expansion, thinking it would be relatively easy to overcome a weakened Russia.

And the rest, as they say, is history....

Read More

INNOVATION IN MODERN WARFARE

6 February 2025

Purpose of this Article

The purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth look at supply chain logistics in the context of military operations, specifically focusing on the battlefield in Ukraine.

It is part two - Part one described the American side of the organisation - the DoD, Pentagon and CIA - into which Ukraine's supply chain integrates.

It explains how new technologies are developed, tested, and integrated into the supply chain by design bureaux, which are specialised research and development organisations. The article also discusses the role of the CIA and the Pentagon in Ukraine's military logistics and how NATO's processes are integrated into Ukraine's innovation pipeline. 

The overall aim here is to highlight the importance of logistics in modern warfare and how it is reshaping battlefield tactics.

Supply Chain Logistics to the Front Line in Ukraine

This is a nerdy, waffly, and for most people, a sleep-inducing video, but don’t let that put you off as it’s actually an accurate and insightful look at how a design bureau develops new technologies and integrates them into the supply chain.

A design bureau is a specialised research and development organisation that creates, tests, and improves new technologies, mostly in the aerospace, military, or industrial engineering sectors, before they are deployedfor mass-production, and then continuously improved upon.

Frame of Reference for this Article

The frame of reference here is supply chain logistics, specifically on the battlefield. 

This is not about battlefield tactics - that’s a different subject entirely – it’s about getting equipment onto the battlefield for use by the military, aswhere “tactics” is about how the supplied material is used.

The video explains a systematic process of innovation in military logistics. The basic method is widely used in product development:

1. Incubators—small, specialised research teams—are given difficult challenges to solve. For example, “develop a drone navigation system that cannot be jammed by the enemy”, “improve fuel consumption by 15%”....

2. They conduct scientific research, use the findings to develop new technologies, and test prototypes or "MPVs" in real-world conditions.

3. Once a solution is proven effective, it is deployed into the supply chain, meaning it is scaled up and made widely available.

4. Feedback is constantly gathered, and the process is refined and improved over time in a process of “continuous improvement”.

"Minimum Viable Product" (MVP).

An MVP is a basic but functional version of a product or technology that is developed quickly, from basic requirements contained in a SoW Statement of Work, in order to test its core features in real-world conditions. 

The purpose of an MVP is to gather feedback, refine the design, and improve the economics, efficiency and effectiveness ("The Three E's") of the process, before deployment in full-scale production.

In the context of design bureaux and military logistics, an MVP could be an early version of a drone, missile system, or some AI-driven targeting software - something good enough to test but not yet finalised.

The video presents this well - although the delivery is a bit choppy, and the presenter mixes in ads for high-caffeine bubble gum (gotta make a living), still, the core idea is solid: a constant cycle of systematic innovation, deployment, and back to the bureau for improvement.

Why This Matters: The CIA, Pentagon, and Ukraine’s Supply Chain

This brings us to the role of the CIA and Pentagon in Ukraine’s military logistics. Some people suggest that the U.S. is directly helping Ukraine improve its battlefield logistics—this video gives us a way to understand how that actually works in practise, in the daily operations of the Pentagon and CIA.

1. NATO’s Integration of Ukraine’s Supply Chain

• The Pentagon and CIA supply expertise, training specialists in “train the trainer” role to improve Ukraine’s logistics at every level.

• This is a highly detailed process, similar to the work of companies like Bureau Veritas or Intertek, or processes like Six Sigma, in the corporate world - constantly improving efficiency to make production faster - better - cheaper.

• When Professor Mearsheimer talks about making Ukraine a “de facto member of  NATO”, this is what it means: Ukraine’s entire innovation pipeline, from R&D to battlefield deployment, is now deeply integrated into NATO's processes, organisation and funding. It is quite extraordinary the effect of that decision taken by NATO, under strong American prodding, in Bucharest back in 2008.

2. Why Can’t Russia Just Bomb These Drone Factories?

• Q; If Ukraine is churning out drones in huge quantities, why can’t Russia simply bomb the factories? A: Because there are no mass-production factories.

• The specific area of logistics we are discussing is drone manufacturing, but drone manufacturing not a centralised industrial process.

• Instead, it’s a distributed process, a high-tech but cottage-based industry:

o American Intertek or French Bureau Veritas supply Six Sigma-trained specialists to train Ukrainian trainers.

o The Ukrainian trainers then spread their knowledge to numerous small workshops - people literally building drones in their garages for their friends on the front lines.

o These drones, often made from cheap Chinese civilian imports, are turned into lethal battlefield weapons.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t traditional warfare where you hit a big industrial complex and cripple the enemy’s supply. 

It’s distributed, decentralised, and constantly evolving. It’s a system that NATO logistics experts have refined to the point where Ukraine is now fully integrated into NATO.

So that’s the real story here: how NATO is providing Ukraine with logistics to reshape modern warfare.

Read More

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, PENTAGON AND CIA

6 February 2025

READ ME FIRST

We are going to look at innovation in the supply chains that deliver equipment to the battlefields in Ukraine and how ukraine is in practice fully integrated into NATO. But first, we need to understand the difference between the Department of Defence, the Pentagon and the CIA.

Note on Organisational Responsibilities

The Pentagon is primarily responsible for overseeing Ukraine's battlefield supply chain logistics. There is a work programme called the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), under which the Department of Defense (DoD) provides training, equipment, and advisory support to enhance Ukraine's defense capabilities.

Additionally, the Army Materiel Command (AMC) has been delivering substantial military aid to Ukraine, for the efficient management of logistics and supply chains.

While the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may offer intelligence support, the coordination and management of battlefield logistics falls under the DoD's jurisdiction.

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Pentagon are closely related, but they are not the same thing:

1. The Department of Defense (DoD) is the governmental institution responsible for overseeing the U.S. military, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and various intelligence and logistical agencies. It is headed by the Secretary of Defense, who reports directly to the President.

2. The Pentagon is the physical headquarters of the DoD, located in Arlington, Virginia. It is also commonly used as a metonym (a word that represents something larger) for the DoD itself. When people say “the Pentagon made a decision,” they usually mean that the Department of Defense, as an institution, made the decision.

How Does the CIA Fit Into This?

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plays a different but complementary role to the Department of Defense (DoD) in Ukraine and other military conflicts. While the Pentagon (DoD) is responsible for battlefield logistics, military strategy, and direct support, the CIA operates in the realm of covert intelligence, special operations, and foreign influence.

The CIA’s Mission in Relation to Ukraine’s War Effort

The CIA’s overall mission is to:

1. Gather and analyse intelligence on foreign threats.

2. Conduct covert operations to support U.S. strategic objectives.

3. Influence foreign affairs through supposedly non-military means.

In Ukraine, the CIA is involved in:

1. Provide real-time intelligence on Russian troop movements, intercepted communications, and battlefield conditions.

2. Train Ukrainian special forces and intelligence operatives in sabotage, counterintelligence, and irregular warfare.

3. Coordinate drone and cyber warfare programs, ensuring Ukraine has advanced targeting intelligence to strike Russian positions.

4. Run covert logistics networks to help move weapons, equipment, and foreign fighters into Ukraine.

5. Advise on psychological operations (PsyOps) to counter Russian propaganda and maintain Western support.

How the CIA and the Pentagon Work Together

The CIA and the Pentagon (DoD) often collaborate but they do have distinct roles:

1. The Pentagon handles large-scale military operations and logistics.

2. The CIA focuses on intelligence gathering, covert missions, and asymmetric warfare.

For example, the Pentagon might supply Ukraine with HIMARS missiles, while the CIA provides real-time intelligence on Russian troop movements.

The CIA also operates in deniable or unofficial capacities, such as supporting partisan resistance movements in occupied Ukrainian territories, training Ukrainian intelligence services, and running covert drone warfare programs.

In Summary:

1. The DoD is the organisation.

2. The Pentagon is the building where the DoD operates and a shorthand way of referring to it.

3. The DoD (Pentagon) manages battlefield logistics, troop training, and weapons deliveries.

4. The CIA provides intelligence, covert training, special operations, and sabotage efforts behind enemy lines.

Both work together in an attempt to give Ukraine strategic, technological and intelligence superiority over Russia.

Read More