TRUMP IS IN A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

20 January 2025

Some of trump's executive orders for day one

Alex Krainer on Trump's strategies for the Middle East and Europe

Alex Krainer, days of thunder begin today

Bannon confirmed that Trump and his team will go on the offensive from day one in office. "The days of thunder begin on Monday," he said, and the world will not be the same again. Bannon wasn't talking about Trump going on the offensive against the Chinese, Iranians or the Russians. Trump and his team are preparing to take on what he calls the "they”, meaning members of "the imperialist cabal" But what is this cabal, who is in it, and what are the differences between the old cabal and the new?

(This piece by Krainer also includes an interesting account of what happened the last time revolutionary government took on the elite in america, in a section entitled "The price of defying the Empire".)

1. Who Are the People in the "Imperialist Cabal"?

1.1 Defining the "Cabal"

The term "imperialist cabal" refers to a group of elites who allegedly wield disproportionate power over global politics, economics, and media.

Steve Bannon and others often describe this cabal as transnational, prioritising globalist interests over national sovereignty.

Members are typically seen as a mix of political leaders, corporate executives, and influential think-tanks.

1.2 Possible Members

Some individuals and organisations often mentioned in this context:

1. Klaus Schwab: Founder of the World Economic Forum, associated with globalist initiatives like the "Great Reset."

2. George Soros: Billionaire philanthropist funding progressive and internationalist causes.

3. Larry Fink: CEO of BlackRock, controlling vast economic assets globally.

4. Christine Lagarde: President of the European Central Bank, linked to EU federalism and global financial institutions.

5. Bill Gates: Through the Gates Foundation, involved in global health and climate initiatives.

6. Tony Blair: Former UK Prime Minister, a proponent of liberal interventionism and global governance.

7. Followers of the lare Henry Kissinger: Known for realpolitik and shaping U.S. foreign policy in favour of a global order.

8. David Miliband: CEO of the International Rescue Committee, often connected to global humanitarian policies.

9. Jeff Bezos: Founder of Amazon, a symbol of corporate power and media influence (The Washington Post).

10. Mark Zuckerberg: CEO of Meta, with significant influence over digital information and public discourse.

11. Anthony Fauci: unelected technocrat; central authority during the COVID-19 pandemic; aligned with international health organisations like the WHO, criticised as tools of global governance; close ties to the Gates Foundation and big pharma.

1.3 Is the Cabal Based in London?

It's quite exciting to frame this as a fight between old empire and new empire, but I think this is far-fetched. Having said that, some do speculate the cabal may draw inspiration from the remnants of the British Empire:

The UK has historic influence over global finance (e.g., the City of London) and political networks like the Commonwealth.

Figures like Tony Blair and globalist think-tanks based in London (e.g., Chatham House) are frequently cited.

However, this "cabal" is more likely decentralised, with hubs in London, Washington D.C., Brussels, and Davos.

2. Comparing Ideologies: Imperial Cabal vs. Trump's Platform

2.1 The Cabal’s Ideology

Globalism: Advocates for a world without borders, prioritising international cooperation and governance over national sovereignty.

Technocracy: Belief in rule by experts, often through global institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WEF.

Free Trade and Deregulation: Promotion of economic globalisation, often at the expense of local industries.

Climate Change: Strong emphasis on transitioning to green energy, sometimes perceived as prioritising elites over working-class needs.

Social Liberalism: Focus on progressive policies, diversity equity and inclusion DEI, often through international agreements.

2.2 Trump’s Ideology and Policy Platform

Nationalism: "America First" policies prioritising national sovereignty over international commitments.

Populism: Championing the working class, opposing elites, and advocating for reduced influence of global institutions.

Economic Protectionism: Reshoring manufacturing jobs and renegotiating trade deals to benefit the U.S.

Energy Independence: Promoting fossil fuels and opposing policies perceived as harmful to domestic energy sectors.

Traditional Values: Opposes progressive social policies, favouring conservative cultural stances.

3. Comparison: Key Contrasts

4. Conclusion

The "imperialist cabal" represents an ideology of globalism, technocracy, and elite governance, contrasting sharply with Trump’s nationalist, populist, and protectionist policies. 

Whether or not this cabal is headquartered in London or decentralised, the conflict is framed as one between globalist elites and national-populist movements. The fight, as Bannon describes it, underscores a larger philosophical clash over the future direction of governance, sovereignty, and societal priorities.

Read More

THE COLD WAR AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PAN EUROPEAN SECURITY

20 January 2025

The Cold War and the Foundations of Pan-European Security

During the Cold War, the international system was structured under zero-sum conditions. Two opposing power blocs—capitalist West and communist East—depended on military alliances to maintain bloc discipline and security dependence among allies.

Despite the rivalry, there were incentives to reduce tensions, given the risks of nuclear war.

The Helsinki Accords (1975) provided the foundation for a pan-European security architecture, creating common "rules of the game" for both blocs. This inspired Mikhail Gorbachev's vision of a "Common European Home" to unify the continent.

Post-Cold War Optimism

1. Gorbachev’s Initiatives:

In December 1988, Gorbachev announced significant Soviet military reductions (500,000 soldiers, 50,000 withdrawn from Warsaw Pact countries).

By November 1989, Moscow allowed the fall of the Berlin Wall without intervention.

In December 1989, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush declared the end of the Cold War at the Malta Summit.

2. Charter of Paris (1990):

This agreement, rooted in the Helsinki Accords, emphasised ending Europe’s division and pursuing indivisible security:

"The security of every participating state is inseparably linked to that of all the others."

3. Formation of the OSCE (1994):

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) aimed to uphold pan-European security. The Bucharest Document (1994) reaffirmed the principle:

"They will not strengthen their security at the expense of other states."

NATO Expansion and Its Consequences

1. Conflict with Pan-European Security:

NATO’s expansion conflicted with America’s ambitions for global hegemony, as noted by Charles de Gaulle, who viewed NATO as a tool for U.S. dominance.

Expanding NATO divided Europe again, abandoning the principle of indivisible security by strengthening NATO at Russia’s expense.

2. Internal Warnings Against Expansion:

U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry opposed NATO expansion, recognising it would undermine peace with Russia.

George Kennan, architect of the containment policy, warned in 1997:

"This expansion would create a new Cold War... It is a fateful error."

3. American Justifications:

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described NATO as an "insurance policy" against potential Russian aggression.

Joe Biden, then a senator, predicted a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response to NATO expansion but dismissed its significance, mocking Moscow’s warnings about closer ties with China or Iran.

Russia’s Efforts for Cooperation

1. Attempts to Join NATO:

Presidents Yeltsin and Putin explored the possibility of Russia joining NATO but were met with rejection.

Putin sought partnership with the U.S. during the Global War on Terror, only to face more NATO expansions and "colour revolutions" along Russia’s borders.

2. Proposals for Pan-European Security:

2008: Moscow proposed a new pan-European security framework, which was rejected as it would diminish NATO’s primacy.

2010: Russia proposed an EU-Russia Free Trade Zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, aiming to integrate economies and reduce zero-sum competition. This was ignored by the West.

3. Ukraine Brightest of Red Lines:

CIA Director William Burns warned in 2008 that NATO expansion into Ukraine was a "bright red line" for Russia, likely to trigger war.

Despite this, in 2014, NATO supported a coup in Kiev, pulling Ukraine into its orbit and leading to conflict with Russia.

Collapse of Pan-European Security

1. Betrayal of Agreements:

Gorbachev lamented that NATO’s expansionism betrayed the Helsinki Accords and Charter of Paris, reversing agreements to end Europe’s division.

Putin echoed this, stating:

"The Berlin Wall fell, but invisible walls were moved to the East of Europe. This has led to misunderstandings and crises."

2. George Kennan’s Prediction:

In 1998, Kennan warned that NATO expansion would provoke conflict, which would then be used to justify NATO’s existence:

"This expansion will create a bad reaction from Russia, and the NATO expanders will say, ‘See, we told you so.’"

Impact on Europe

1. Re-dividing the Continent: 

NATO expansion revived Cold War dynamics, creating a divided Europe that is less prosperous, secure, and stable.

2. Silencing Dissent: 

Western elites demonise any opposition to NATO’s narrative, labelling critics as pro-Russian. Dissidents are censored, silencing any debate about the predictable consequences of NATO expansionism.

3. Missed Opportunities: 

The West’s refusal to consider Russia’s proposals for new security frameworks or agreements like "Helsinki-II" has deepened divisions.

Conclusion

The collapse of pan-European security was a predictable outcome of NATO’s expansionist policies. Gorbachev’s vision of a unified and secure Europe has been replaced by renewed tensions and a divided continent. The combination of arrogance, ignorance, and dishonesty by Western political elites has prevented meaningful course corrections, leaving Europe less stable and secure than before.

Read More

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE

18 January 2025

We keep talking about how Trump wants to pull America out of NATO, or at least make the Europeans pay a lot more for American protection and take more responsibility - not just financially - for their own defence.

But how realistic is any of this? I can’t see NATO staying together if America pulled out, and I don’t think that’s desirable either. Europe is headless, the famous Franco-German couple is broken, and there would be endless squabbles between the members over how to run a European defence function. It needs American leadership for NATO to function.

As for Europe building its own arms industry to match American quality and price - that’s a fantasy, however desirable it might sound. But Europe could run a procurement program - Airbus runs a worldwide supplier network and very successfully manages time quality and price (ask Boeing!), through configuration management and quality control on the production lines. American arms industry as supplier, the customer is king!

And this idea of Europe paying more for its defence - why should it? Paying more doesn’t necessarily mean better defence, currently it would just mean paying higher prices for the same provision. The real question is: why is there even a need for this level of defence in the first place?

This question uncovers the real problem, unresolved since the Cold War...since Mackinder indeed: the lack of a proper security architecture for Europe and its borderlands, the sea power - land power challenge. The former Soviet republics should be as they always were - a buffer space between Russia and Western Europe ( i'm not justifying Russophobia here at all or in any way, I think the fear of Russia is misplaced). But these short-term democratic leaders just keep dodging what is a very difficult and long-term project, maybe 10 to 20 years.

And let’s be honest: the first step to real European security would be for America to give up its underhand hegemonic plans to grab Russian resources. America should order a rewrite of RAND_RR3036 instead.

What do you think?

Oh yea ....

AND EUROPE WILL RISE AGAIN

Read More

UKRAINE UPDATE JAN 2025

16 January 2025

NATO was set up to secure Europe from Russia and Germany. Has it fulfilled its mission? Not really. NATO provoked this war by breaking its not-one-inch-east promise at the end of the cold war. NATO rejected Russia’s reasonable security concerns, welched on Minsk, sabotaged Istanbul, and for three years refused to talk to Russia. In 2008 it promised that Ukraine would join NATO and in 2014, NATO supported the coup in Kiev, despite strong advice that this would lead to war.

As to Ukrainians themselves, most did not support NATO membership in 2014. At the time of the coup, only 20% of Ukrainians supported NATO membership, so NATO’s actions lacked democratic support in Ukraine and were not wanted.

NATO made no attempt at finding a peaceful settlement to its conflict. Minsk was not implemented, Istanbul was sabotaged, offers of talks were ignored, RAND was commisioned to offer detailedadvice on how to weaken Russia, western publics were brainwashed with russophobic propaganda.

NATO failed to defeat Russia on the battlefield, sanctions failed to collapse the Russian economy, and diplomacy failed to isolate Russia.

As to global alliances and restructuring, Russia has strengthened its alignment with China and shifted its economic focus towards the East, we now have BRICS+ whose purposes include protection from a bullying West.

The biggest losers from this war are the people of Ukraine who've endured the greatest suffering, suffered the heaviest casualties and seen their country devastated.

But Europe is not far behind. It too has faced significant defeats - loss of security, economy wrecked, political overthrow by the populists, reduced to geopolitical irrelevance.

Long-term, NATO’s (America's, for the globalist neocons bear unique responsibility for The Defeat of the West)  approach has entrenched an East-West divide that will endure for decades, Russia has turned away from Europe and the West and towards Asia and the East.

Bibliography

https://youtube.com/shorts/zozFJVU4Thc?si=s3Hs5tSonAqJwhjM

Read More

THE PERILS OF ESCALATION WITH RUSSIA

15 January 2025

The Perils of Escalation with Russia

https://youtu.be/rq4J8kXvWfA?si=z-IKsxUcRkTWdXAg

The article warns of the risks of continued Western escalation in the Ukraine conflict, highlighting the potential consequences of misinterpreting Russia's threats and capabilities.

1. Escalation Misconceptions:

The West’s pattern of dismissing Russia’s deterrent threats has led to complacency, with many viewing Putin’s nuclear rhetoric as mere bluff.

However, escalation dynamics are unpredictable and non-linear, with deferred pressures potentially leading Russia to act decisively in the future.

2. Conventional and Nuclear Risks:

Russia’s development of advanced weapons like the "Oreshnik" hypersonic missile allows for powerful, calibrated responses without resorting to nuclear weapons.

While nuclear use remains unlikely, tactical deployment is not impossible and poses significant risks.

3. Russia’s Growing Military Strength:

Contrary to expectations, Western support has prolonged the war, allowing Russia to transform its latent power into tangible military capability.

Russia’s efficient production of artillery, access to critical resources, and partnerships with allies like China and Iran have bolstered its war-making capacity.

4. Ukraine’s Weakening Position:

Ukraine faces critical manpower shortages and strained resources, making institutional breakdown or capitulation more likely over time.

Russia’s resolve, driven by perceived NATO threats to its security, remains stronger than Western assumptions of imperial ambition.

5. Western Strategy Flaws:

The West lacks "escalation dominance" over Russia, undermining efforts to coerce Moscow into favorable negotiations.

Current strategies risk backfiring, further eroding Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.

6. A Call for Policy Shift:

The article advocates abandoning attempts to negotiate from a position of unattainable strength.

It suggests that accommodation with Russia, though unpalatable, is the most practical and moral path to ending the war.

Prolonging escalation will only worsen Ukraine’s plight and force the West to confront harsher terms later.

Read More