Putin is Between a Rock and a Hard Place

By Rich Kozlovich  Tags: P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukrainian War, and Donald Trump, Putin

This piece was inspired by a podcast by George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures.   GF is a subscription site, and so I can't link it, and so too are some of my other observations, so you'll just have to take my word for what appears here.  Or not as it please you.  Otherwise information from non subscription sites are linked.  

The Russian oligarchs, former criminals, many of which formerly worked in Soviet intelligence agencies, are outraged at Putin.  They created him and now because of him all their money that’s tied up in European banks are closed to them, they can’t get at it.  

Putin's facing serious economic issues, and it's being reported the Russian economy is suffering, that Russia's economic growth plummeted after Trump took office, and their economic minister says the country is on the brink of recession.  Now  OPEC is going to boost oil production which will cut into Russia's income stream.

Trump was catering to Putin for quite a while, and while Trump is a brilliant negotiator, there’s a difference between economic negotiations, and the negations dealing with national pride..... and survival for Putin.  But Trump is still Trump, and he’s had it with Putin, giving him a deadline for massively larger sanctions and sanctions on anyone who trades with him, and he’s not Obama.

• Clock Ticking For Russia During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump said he believed he could end the Russia-Ukraine war with a few phone calls. I thought he could, too. I thought Russia and Ukraine were both weary, to put it mildly, and would be happy to be given a way out by the U.S. But we were wrong. Ukraine wanted to negotiate an end to the war, but Russia didn’t. ........
• Trump's Eyes Opened on Putin. Now What Will He Do?  - "I'm not happy with what Putin is doing. He's killing a lot of people, and I don't know what the hell happened to Putin," said Donald Trump on Truth Social over the holiday weekend. 
• Trump Warns Russia: Make Peace With Ukraine in 50 Days—Or Monster Tariffs  - President Donald Trump told reporters during a meeting with NATO chief Mark Rutte on Monday that European NATO members would fund billions of dollars of American military equipment, including Patriot missiles, for Ukraine and threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with a massive 100-per cent indirect tariff if he did not make peace in 50 days....
• Trump’s Ukraine Ultimatum: A Promising First Step - President Trump’s July 14 ultimatum to Vladimir Putin—demanding peace in Ukraine within 50 days and threatening secondary sanctions on countries like China and India if they continue funding Russia’s aggression—is a welcome and long-overdue step. But it is just that: a first step. If the goal is peace and deterrence of future wars, the United States and its allies must go further.......

What Putin is doing in these negotiations are what the Russians have always done.  Talking a lot,  saying nothing, delaying, and all the while pursuing their goals threatening to take more and more dramatic actions in order to force everyone to give in, "pounding Ukraine with missiles and drones a day before the two sides meet for a new round of direct talks in Istanbul."  

His military is undermanned and disgruntled sending Smartphone videos of protest back to their families.  A Ukrainian drone attack destroyed more than 40 Russian planes deep in Russian territory, and Russian retribution for daring Ukrainian strike is postponed, perhaps indefinitely:

Ukraine’s June 1 strike on four Russian airbases exposed severe vulnerabilities in Russia’s air defenses, prompting patriotic outcries and demands for retaliation despite censorship and subdued official responses. Russia’s retaliatory strike on June..

Having around a million casualties from his war with Ukraine, and hundreds of thousands of them dying, Putin faces not only a serious manpower issues for his military, he also faces a serious labor gap.  Now Putin's Ministry of Education is floating the idea they should try to recruit workers from Africa, Latin America, and India, but these are untrained people who will be expected to fill jobs that are far more technical than they capable of performing, in a culture with a language they're don't speak.  That will take time to train them properly.  This isn't a short term fix that can help Putin. 

He's incapable of meeting the needs of his military any longer, and has asked Laos to send "engineering troops to help de-mine the Kursk region".  Laos sent 50 engineers, even "providing rehabilitation support for wounded Russian soldiers."

North Korea is sending "25,000 more troops, 1,000 combat engineers, and 5,000 "military construction personnel to help rebuild Russia's Kursk region," and now Putin’s surrender to Islam:

In March 2025, tens of thousands of Muslims flooded Moscow’s streets for Eid al-Fitr prayers. Loudspeakers blasted the Islamic call to prayer, echoing under the gaze of the Kremlin itself. This wasn’t simply a religious gathering. It was a state-enabled spectacle of Islamic dominance in Russia’s capital—a country once considered the stronghold of Orthodox Christianity. The government not only permitted the display but also provided infrastructure and protection.

He attacked Ukraine only to abandon Russia to elements that will destroy Russia from within.  

Putin has a Central Asian problem.  Former Soviet Republics are, like Kazakhstan, moving in directions that are clearly meant to neutralize Russian influence.  Kazakhstan is negotiating with Pakistan on military issues, and has aims to modernize their military via what they calling multivector diplomacy

Central Asia’s Water Crisis Becoming Russia’s Problem: To the extent that happens—and Moscow’s behavior makes such an outcome ever more probable—three developments are almost certain. 

1. First, the Central Asian countries are likely to distance themselves from Moscow, even as an ever-increasing number of their citizens migrate to Russia to access sufficient water.  
2.  Second, the PRC, Afghanistan, and possibly other countries further from the scene will expand their influence in the region at Russia’s expense.
3. Third, Russia will likely become the site of more ethnic conflict and the political instability that such a development entails. Had Moscow taken a different position on diverting some Siberian river water to Central Asia or even shown itself more sympathetic to the problems of Central Asians, it might have avoided all these unwelcome outcomes. It may now be too late for the Kremlin to recover...............

The Caucuses, which are historically notorious for instability, are growing more and more unstable, and it's clear Russia is so tied up with Ukraine they're losing control involving their own region of Dagestan, along with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, and now Turkey is involving itself.  Just about everything the Russians have done has exacerbated the issues there. 

The Poles have to worry about everyone.  They don’t like the Ukrainians, the hate the Germans, and they fear the Russians, and rightly so since the Russians are talking about the “final act” an attack against European cities, and presumably they mean nuclear attacks.  Which probably means they’re just talking since you don’t tell the enemy what you’re planning to do.  But Putin is in trouble, and if he can’t do something radical to win this war, he’s toast. 

• Kremlin Increases Anti-Poland Propaganda Executive Summary: Russia is intensifying its hybrid warfare against Poland through cyberattacks, sabotage, and disinformation, while portraying Polish defensive actions as provocations to fuel domestic narratives and justify ongoing hostility. Kremlin propaganda is beginning to..
• Pivotal Poland: Europe’s Rising Power Announcing – Promethean Liberation: Russia’s Emerging National and Regional Movements - The invasion of Ukraine has accelerated the decline of the Russian state and raised the prospects for domestic turmoil. It has resulted in an unsustainable militarization of the economy, falling state revenues, shrinking financial reserves, military failures, and signs of mounting regional and ethnic unrest. Without structural reforms that boost the civilian economy and absent any autonomy among Russia’s 83 republics and regions, the federal structure will become increasingly unmanageable and vulnerable to movements demanding sovereignty or secession.

And now Germany is promoting the idea Ukraine should be part of NATO.  It's not going to happen for a number of reasons, including everyone is getting really tired of Zelenskyy.  

Putin turned Russian politics in its head, and while Stalin never feared the other institutional structures of the communist regime because they all understood Stalin was the new Czar.  Everyone between Stalin and Putin did fear them.  Putin, like Stalin, doesn’t fear them, but he’s not Stalin, and he never built a structure around himself as Stalin did.

If he makes a peace with Ukraine after over three years of war, and a million casualties with the hundreds of thousands of young Russian men dying, billions of dollars in military costs, multi billions lost in economic sanctions, he’s toast.  So, he threatens use of nuclear weapons, which he doesn’t dare do now since Europe fears him and is reaming itself against him.  He’s threatening to attack Europe via an air war for arming Ukraine, but Europe is doing it anyway, and now Germany has deployed military brigades in Lithuania.

Their banking system is collapsing, the Russian people are not happy, but Putin is making it clear he’s in charge, he wants what he wants, and Europe had better be prepared for war, but I do believe there's a von Stauffenberg cabal within his military, and his government, and if that's true, he's not going to last much longer, especially if Trump imposes more economic sanctions on Russia and all those doing business with Russia.  

An Abundance of Uncertainties

By Rich Kozlovich

George Friedman is the owner of Geopolitical Futures, a subscription site, and well worth it, I just upped my subscription for three more years, who has stated on more than one occasion the cold war didn't really end with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The cold war was predicated on preventing Russia from conquering Europe, hence the creation of NATO.  But the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't alter Russian goals.   They still had the same goal of taking over Europe just as it was the Soviet Union's.   As a result the cold war continued as a practical reality.   George states that concern ended with the Russo/Ukrainian War, which ended the cold war reality.

•  A confusing world without a hegemon  A growing concern dominates Western politics and diplomacy: the unraveling of the so-called rules-based world order. Many place the blame on the Trump administration. However, this shift was inevitable because of geopolitical, geoeconomic and demographic forces, regardless of who occupies the White House.  This world order – never truly universal – provided a framework for relative global stability under the Pax Americana. From the 1950s until the collapse of the Soviet Union, it served as the foundation for peace and prosperity in the free world. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction created a tense balance between the capitalist and communist blocs. ..............

Previous to this, everyone, including me, believed NATO was a wet paper bag without the United States, and it was!   As a result without American support it was reasonably believed Russia could drive down the North European plain right into France, and Europe wouldn't be able to stop them.  While I believed Russia could cut right through Europe, but I didn't believe they could hold it.  Even before this it was clear Russia didn't have the economic wherewithal, nor did they have the manpower to do so as Russia's demographic pyramid was a mess. Well, everyone, including me, was wrong!  Even without American support we now realize Europe still had the technological and military capability and wherewithal to have stopped them in Poland.

Russia has what they consider seven defensive gaps that must be maintained.  Ten years ago they only had manpower to fully man three of them, and it's gotten much worse since then as Putin is destroying his young population.  The Russian demographic pyramid was already all out of whack with the 15 to 50 demographic filled with alcoholics, drug users, victims of AIDS and drug resistant TB.   The critical 15 to 50 age group which creates the economy and the next generation, both of which he's destroying.   Socialism always turns into a form of monarchy.    It doesn't matter whether you call an autocrat Emperor, Chairman, President or King.  An autocrat is an autocrat and invariably they cannibalize the societies they control.

We now we know Russia isn't the mighty bear we thought it was.   Russia had what was considered the number two military in the world, yet it has been unable to defeat the number twenty two rated military in almost four years, and has now had to resort to threatening to use nukes.

Russia's now lost hundreds of thousands of young men, and is now running out of young bodies to fight the war and being forced to using "volunteers" from N. Korea and China.  They can't manufacture all of their own military hardware, and is now being attacked with drones deeper inside Russia destroying their oil and gas depots, which they had already used to  destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet.  Drones are the new military strategic horizon, giving small nations a fighting chance, and that technology is going to expand massively now, right along with laser weaponry, which I've written about. 

The reality of Russia's demographics is coming home to roost as now they're inviting immigrants from Africa and Asia to work in their factories, and that's a poison pill since it was estimated over ten years ago the ethnic population of Russia would be a minority in their own land by 2040, fifteen years away.  I've not seen any recent estimates but I wouldn't be shocked to see that's closer to eight years away now.  It's interesting to see how many are coming from the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, since they're following their own economic visions with international trade and moving closer to China.   And... Russia's economic minister is predicting a recession.  The hits just keep right on coming. 

So, back to George Friedman.  He notes this real end of the cold war has put the world's leaders in a quandary seeking an anchor to their thinking and planning, and that's moving away from Europe to the Middle East and Asia.

What the world is facing is a much higher level of  geopolitical risks than has existed for decades, none of which will go away any time soon, and those are tied in with very serious domestic political issues which are going go haunt us for decades, much of them due to the unbridled immigration the Obama/Biden cabal forced on America in order to destroy America.  And please stop foolishly believing otherwise because if you can't accept that, you can't understand anything going on.  The evidence of that was obvious to the most casual observer while Obama was President, and now it's overwhelming since Trump was reelected and everything they did is being exposed for the treason it was.  

Islam is the greatest threat to western civilization, the second and third greatest threats to western civilization is debt and an oversized state.  Economically the world is in trouble with the world's nations being in debt to almost 310 trillion dollars,  much of which can't be repaid, and most political "leaders" are averse to fixing that as they're embracing the welfare state mentality to keep their jobs, including America, which I believe the Big Beautiful Bill will demonstrate when it passes. The result is we're looking at inflation and a worldwide recession on the horizon. 

Investors are becoming more and more risk averse, and rightly so, especially the new generation coming up.   Fixed income is in jeopardy, and trade policies are shifting the world's focus on investments with no idea what to do about it.  

Do I believe there will there be less violence, enhanced with a better, safer, and more stable economic climate in the near future?  No!  

And that's the only thing I'm certain about. 

Update:  This article appeared on June 18th, America and what 250 years may mean asking, "can anyone give me a convincing argument that we are not living through the end of America?" I responded saying I’ve read three books on historical cycles, all complicated, and if there ever was a history regimen that needed an academic discipline, that’s it. All the authors have their own terminology and time frames, but all three agreed on one thing. We’re facing the end of this historical cycle, and it’s worldwide. All end cycles are filled with violence and economic downturns, but for a nation to survive it needs six (I amended my original comment) things.

1. It must be able to feed itself.
2. Fuel itself.
3. Arm itself. 
4. Defend itself.
5. Create it’s own internal market.
6. Pay off it’s national debt.

America is the only nation in the world capable of all six. Will there be serious issues? Sure, but the nation is capable of surviving intact, even if diminished. The world is not only in a domestic state of flux, it’s in a geopolitical state of flux looking for an anchor for their decision making and direction. When the new historical cycle begins things will be different, when that begins and how different it will be no one can say, but it’s my belief there are a lot of existing nations that will be broken up into smaller states, not an uncommon occurrence throughout history.

The Kobayashi Maru No Win Scenario and The Questions Never Asked

What was a civilian fuel ship doing in the Klingon Neutral Zone in the first place?

By Rich Kozlovich 

For Star Trek fans this is a well known story, and recently this scenario came up in an article, Will the Deep State Be Beaten via a ‘Kobayashi Maru Maneuver by DOGE Team?, forcing Democrats to "defend the indefensible" with their obnoxious, brash, senseless, outrageous claims regarding Trump's policies, while failing to offer any coherent answers. 

As for this idea that what Trump is doing isn't what America voted for, well, it appears that's exactly what America voted for as 60% favor expanding oil and gas production, 59% favor declaring emergency at southern border, and Trump has put Democrats in the position of opposing his massively popular positions — “defending the indefensible” — and they have no coherent answers.

• America Trusts Trump on Almost Every Issue

Being a Star Trek fan over the years (I don't like the new woke stuff) I always liked that "no win" scenario.  Everyone taking the test knew if they attempted a rescue, the test was unbeatable, you were dead, the crew was dead, and the ship was destroyed, unless you cheated as did cadet Kirk.  He says he didn't cheat, he altered the parameters of the program....he cheated.... and he says he did it because he didn't believe in a no win scenario, and claimed he received a commendation for initiative.   He cheated because he wanted to win.   

That was from the original Star Trek series, but in a later movie what he received wasn't a commendation.  At least initially, and then he received a command.  As I said, it's fiction!  So as I go through this keep that in mind, but nonetheless there's a lot to be gleaned regarding the Kobayashi Maru scenario as there are six issues surrounding this whole Star Trek story that are instructive.

1. First, it's fiction. 
2. Secondly, this story is predicated on the Bretton Woods cold war idea it's America's job to resolve all the world's problems.  That's the philosophical framework for this scenario, making the assumption the Star Fleet captains would risk destruction and the lives of their crew to save a completely defenseless victim.  
3. No one in any of these shows dealing with this ever asks why that fuel ship was there in the first place?  The Neutral Zone was huge, and the distances between the neutral zone and the federation planets was also huge.  So, where exactly were they going and how did they get there? 
4. What if this is just a trap to start a war? No single star ship would survive, and they knew it.
   
5. No one ever explains "rationally" throughout all the various Star Trek TV manifestations and movies why the federation ever agreed to an arms limitation, meaning cloaking devices for their star-ships.  They claimed it was to get a peace treaty?  Really? Is that in any way sound rational?  Everyone else had one, and it was huge advantage, and remember in the original show this vessel was surrounded by a lot of cloaked Klingon ships just waiting for them to attempt a rescue.  
   
6. Why would an enemy, especially those with tyrannical violent militarized cultures having such an advantage agree to such a treaty, and if they did, why would they honor any such a peace treaty? It's all irrational, but it's instructive.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario is exactly like so many issues surrounding us today, including the Russo/Ukrainian War.    Entirely too much information is left out, too many lies have been told, too much corruption and backstabbing has take place, and done so deliberately, and now those lies and misdirection from the media, politicians, and the Deep State are coming home to roost. 

What would I have done as a cadet faced with the Kobayshi Maru scenario?  Nothing! They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, as there were much larger issues at stake, like potentially starting another interstellar war.  How would the admirals have like it? I have no idea since it appears all the cadet captains tried to save that ship, and they all died, except the one who cheated.

It's kinda like the Russo/Ukrainian War. They got themselves in that mess, let them get themselves out, it's not our fault nor is it our responsibility.  As for this idea that Putin had to attack because he was afraid of NATO, that's nonsense. (more here)  Putin recently noted that Europe's leaders will eventually come to Trump wagging their tails.  Why is that profound? Because that totally undermines his claim he had to attack Ukraine to defend against NATO. He knew those manning NATO's walls are a bunch of wimps, and he had nothing to fear from them, his aggression was all about revanche, acquiring lost territory, and this is all on Putin. 

Vice President Vance torched Europe's leaders, and beat up the globalist oligarchs, putting them on notice, we don't care what you think, what you say, or what you do, and they hated it, with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius saying , “This Is Not Acceptable!”  Well listen up Boris, you don't have a say any longer.   Their hypocrisy and back stabbing has been unending, along with other corrupt self serving schemes such as the EU continued to buy Russia fertilizer through out the war, and Trump isn't going to tolerate it. 

Trump is working to bring an end to this war, and he's cutting out all the players who are obstructing any agreement, that being Europe's leaders and Zelenskyy, who are all have a hissy fit over that, which is understandable, but they've done nothing that works, offer nothing that works, never will agree on anything except keeping the war going, and wanting America to pay for it.  Even much of the weaponry we've given to Ukraine has ended up on the black market, and the money has been diverted, but we don't know where, since Joe Biden wouldn't allow it to be tracked.   So why should we care what Zelenskyy thinks?

But the EU isn't the only ones upset.  The D.C. War Party is angry also, but like the others,  they're out of the talks also.  However, I do find it interesting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte tells Europe to stop whining about being left out of the peace talks, saying if they want to be a part of the debate then come up with concrete ideas. But that's not gonna happen, and that's why Trump is dumping them.  

Now for the questions not asked. 

What I wonder about is this new issue regarding what's being called Ukrainian Economic Colonization over the vast mineral deposits in Ukraine, and the ability to mine them making Ukraine a very wealthy nation.  

Well, if that was true, and I'm assuming it is, then why didn't they take advantage of that before this?  If they had and had become a very wealthy nation they would have been capable of buying, or even better yet, manufacturing all the military hardware necessary to defend themselves and preventing an attack in the first place.  Why didn't they?

If that's part of the deal then we're talking American boots on the ground in order to enrich investors, and in my view, that's no deal at all, it's a Kobayashi Maru scenario, and I still say they created this mess, let them fix it, or not. 

America Needs to Stop Being The World's Policeman!

By Rich Kozlovich 

On August 11, 2023, this article,"We Can't be the World's Policeman?" by Karen McKay was posted on America Thinker claiming someone has to police the world, and it had better be the United States versus anyone else.  Well, I think we need to discuss this as the impetus, because in my opinion, the real reason for this piece is to justify America's involvement in the Russo/Ukraine War, so let's explore this. 

America ended up with that policing "responsibility" after WWII simply because there really wasn't anyone else to keep the world's shipping lanes free of piracy, and that was all about economics, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But why did we have to police and defend Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin and South America, and the rest of the world against communism? Which dragged America into every major and petty conflict that infected humanity?  Many times unsuccessfully at the cost of a lot of America blood and money.

Let’s try and get some clarity on this. The only reason Stalin became such a world threat was because FDR was a traitor, and Stalin “fooled” Truman, which I find interesting since he was a real history buff, and as President of the United States he had to know about the Venona intercepts and how badly Stalin’s agents had infiltrated the federal government under FDR. They turned Eastern Europe over to Stalin, and that gave impetus for China to be taken over by communists, and spread that contamination worldwide.

But the economic and structural stability of the world was in such bad shape after WWII the world was like a child needing an adult hand to hold them up, and America was that adult. But at some point, that child grows up, and you’re not holding them up any longer, they’re dragging you down. We’re long past that point, and it’s time we operate under one principle and one principle only. How does any effort benefit America? But that’s the problem! Who decides if our involvement benefits America or not, and what are the parameters of that evaluation? 

All this goes back to the inappropriate involvement by America in Europe during WWI, the most dramatic event of the 20th century, because all the crises we face are a direct result of that involvement. 

We hear a lot of clabber about the the Zimmerman note and the sinking of the Lusitania, neither of which justified America’s entry into that monstrous meat grinder called WWI.   As provocative as it was, the Zimmerman Note was stupid, and there was no way Germany could lend military aid to Mexico in a war against the US and everyone in the government had to know that.  They couldn't even supply their own military properly how were they supposed to supply Mexico?

As for the Lusitania, while it was a passenger ship, an English passenger ship, it was carrying illegal cargo making it a legitimate target. The Brits knew it and there’s history that suggests the federal government knew it.  All the outrage over that was an emotional red herring played by Wilson and the newspapers.

Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was vile, but it was a result of two things. England was blockading German ports, and the US was materially and financially working to support England, including letting Churchill, who was High Lord of the Admiralty, get away with flying American flags on British ships, all of which was designed to get Germany to sink American ships in order to inflame American outrage and join the war.   A mess Europe created for itself, a mess for which America was not responsible, and a mess for which America had no responsibility to fix.  While Germany was in no way the good guy in this mess, neither were the Brits or Wilson. This was a European problem of their own creation and America needed to stay out of it.

What would have happened if America had stayed out of that war? Europe was already facing riots and terrorist attacks from what they deemed to be anarchists, and had very real fears their governments might be overthrown. These anarchists were in fact all socialists of some brand or the other, and their outrage against these governments was having a serious impact on the people of all these nations, whose children were being slaughtered. They'd tried to wear out machine guns with young men's bodies, and they were all running out of young men. All of their economies were heading into the toilet, which according to the Guns of August, all the European powers knew any continental war lasting more than six months would bankrupt Europe.  All the European nations would have become a second class powers, and America would have emerged the most important economic powerhouse in the world.

When America entered the war that changed the entire material and demographic dynamic, and Germany knew it was done. If America hadn't entered that war, WWII might not have broken out, as historians call WWII nothing more than an aftermath of WWI.  With all the European powers bankrupt, and without the support of Europe's economy, it's most likely Lenin's economic stupidity would have collapsed communist control of Russia, preventing their support of Chinese's communists, and America would no have embarked on over 100 years of wasted American blood and money interfering in failed military enterprises worldwide, getting involved in affairs for which we had nothing to do with. 

This argument that we need to police the world because anyone else would be bad isn't a valid argument to justify wasting untold gallons of American blood and untold billions of American dollars over the last 100 years. This lack of defensive readiness referred to in the article can directly be attributed to this worldwide "policing" effort. Let the world's nations worry about policing themselves! If they don't, won't, or can't, that's their problem.  By America staying out of WWI the European powers would have had to come to a stalemate, and Europe would have had to face up to their stupidity and fix it themselves. 

We're broke, we're exhausted, and we're being destroyed by all these failed worn out leftist globalist concepts, and now Biden want's give anther 24 billion dollars to Ukraine, and since the Democrats refuse to pass legislation that requires audits for that money, who knows whose pocket all that money is going into. 

P&D Geopolitics Edition

By Rich Kozlovich

Okay, I'm going to cover what I've been reading regarding the Russo/Ukrainian War in this piece, but I'm going to go back in time and lay more foundation, and I think my six rules about understanding geopolitics, which blend naturally, are essential in such a discussion. 

1. My First Rule of Geopolitics: All geopolitics is about geographics, demographics and economics. 
   
2. My Second Rule of Geopolitics:  Everything is about the basics.  
3. My Third Rule of Geopolitics:  History is everything. 
4. My Fourth Rule of Geopolitics:  People are like nations, and will act in their own best interests, unless they don't.  
5. My Fifth Rule of Geopolitics: Nothing is ever as it appears.  Look behind the curtain.
6. My Sixth Rule of Geopolitics:  Everyone lies.    
   

There's been all this talk about Putin using nuclear arms in his war with Ukraine.  Initially I thought that was never going to happen.  Then as the war turned against Putin, I thought maybe he will use them in a small strategic way.  Then, as it got worse, I began to think if Putin's rationalized using them in a small way he might adopt the mentality, "in for a dime in for a dollar", and go all out, although even China and India, which are considered allies of a sort, have warned against such an action.  

One of the things I wrote about 10 years ago or so was Russia's very real and primary problem.  Demographics!  Russia believes it has seven defensive gaps it must maintain, and two of them were around Ukraine.  Ten years ago they only had the manpower to maintain three of them.  At that time it was estimated by 2040 ethnic Russians may well be a minority in their own country, and strange is it sounds, I think Putin loves Russia and wants to save Russia.  But there's the rub.  

There's a reason they call Russia "Mother Russia".  In the United States you've never heard the terms Father America, or Mother America because in America the people are America, and America is the people.  In Russia they don't have that mentality, and most assuredly Putin most certainly doesn't have that mentality now, and Russian rulers never have going back to Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union.  Russia, as a land and a nation is what's sacred, and the people merely have the privilege of occupying that nation, and would be used as they saw fit.  

That's what Putin loves, Russia, not the people of Russia.  We find that kind of thinking to be totally alien to us, and that's why we make so many mistakes in dealing with Russia, and China for that matter, as their leaders have much the same mentality.

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin

After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1991, the collapse of the Warsaw pact, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and long before Putin came to power the Russian leadership knew it needed Ukraine to be part of Russia in some form for a number of reasons, but the number one reason was demographics. Russia's demographic  decline is dramatic and with so many fleeing Russia to avoid conscription, it's worse than ever.  They're allegedly planning a new push, which I don't think will happen, and in order to meet their needs they've been using non-Slavic migrants.  But the fact remains their army is demoralized, ill trained, ill equipped, and worse yet, led by an incompetent corrupt military hierarchy. 

Napoleon once noted:

In war, three-quarters turns on personal character and relations; the balance of manpower and materials counts only for the remaining quarter.

If that's true, and considering he fought and won more battles over more diverse terrain than anyone in history, I think we can be assured it is.  That can only mean one thing.  Any future Russian initiatives will be in trouble. 

Ukrainians and Russians are of the same Slavic ethnic stock, and the Russian leadership at the collapse of the Soviet Union, attempted to form a "New Soviet Union" out of the 15 former Soviet Republics, but they didn't desire to have the non-Slavic nations become more powerful in this "New Soviet Union", so they needed Ukraine.  Yeltsin, a typical communist thug,  thought they could intimidate all these Republics into agreeing to this new "looser" tyranny, but they needed a Slavic Ukraine to agree to this new tyranny.  While President George H.W.  Bush tried to persuade Ukraine to accept this new union, they didn't.  All the threats backfired.  

 "Bush delivered his infamous “Chicken Kiev” speech as a result, hoping to prevent Ukraine from pulling out. “Freedom is not the same as independence,” Bush lectured the Ukrainian parliament. “Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” The irony of the speech was sharp: a U.S. president was actively trying to prolong the existence of the country that had been, until recently, the United States’ greatest foe."

So, with Ukraine refusing to join Yeltsin's "new and improved" Soviet Union, he realized other republics would do the same, so, what to do?  All of a sudden Moscow and Washington were allies, what in the world would cause such a scenario? 

Ukraine had a massive stock pile of nuclear arms, the third largest stockpile in the world with 1,900 nuclear warheads and 2,500 tactical nuclear arms, large  uranium deposits.  They also had a large technical and production capacity to manufacture such missiles.  In fact every one of the ballistic missiles delivered to Cuba in 1962 were manufactured in the Ukraine.  There were also nuclear arms in Belarus and Kazakhstan, and in short, and according to Secretary of State Jim Baker, that amounted to: 

“A Yugoslavia-type situation with 30,000 nuclear weapons presents an incredible danger to the American people—and they know it and will hold us accountable if we don’t respond.”

The last thing the U.S. wanted was more nuclear armed independent nations and no one controlling the switch, so they supported Ukraine giving up their nuclear arms to Russia, even offering....sort of....some kind of NATO assurances, which the Russians would have never agreed to.  We'll come back to that.

What followed?  Negotiations, lot's of negotiations! 

They argued over denuclearization, Crimea, the Soviet Black Sea fleet, financial compensation, formal recognition of Ukraine’s borders, security guarantees, and eventually what followed was what has been called the Budapest Memorandum, where if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons they would get "assurances" for their territorial integrity.  No "guarantees", just assurances, and the Russians agreed to that!!!  

That's important to remember. Secretary of State Baker agreed not to expand NATO, but that agreement was with the "Soviet Union".  It no longer exists.  "Russia" made "assurances" to honor Ukraine's borders, that agreement still exists. 

So, after all the bickering and bargaining why did Ukraine agree to this?  They were broke, badly broke. They signed away much to avoid isolation and bankruptcy.  While this agreement, now signed by Bill Clinton, seemed like a triumphant moment as a final end to the cold war, and peace in Europe, the Ukrainian government had no delusions about Russian compliance with any agreement, but this agreement gave them time!!!

Also, Yeltsin made it clear they would never accept Ukraine joining NATO, which shocked Clinton, effectively ending the Partnership for Peace initiative, but efforts to expand NATO went ahead.  

That's important to remember. 

As for the Ukraine government, it went it's merry corrupt way, and the consequences of only having assurances of their border security and independence has now come to fruition, all of which the Russians understood all during those negotiations.  And what exactly did Russia understand?   Ukraine belongs to Russia, and nothing must stand in the way.  

All this clabber about how Putin had to attack because of NATO expansion, and their need for "much-needed strategic depth" justified this invasion as "an act of premeditated self-defense."  That is nothing but a load of horsepucky.

1. Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I
2. Russia Was Scared So They Had to Attack Ukraine, Part II

So, will Putin resort to nuclear war?  As I said, Putin loves Russia, but cares little for the Russian people.  But he has to know if he resorts to nuclear war, he will have destroyed Ukraine, and he will have failed in his primary objective, that being gaining the Ukraine population.   In the course of this he has seriously undermined his own demographics, as he's probably lost up to 200,000 young Russians, he cannot possibly rebuild the Ukraine's infrastructure and cities he's destroyed, since he's broke. If he wins, he loses. 

Also, Putin must be convinced the west will retaliate with nuclear weapons.  He lives in a bubble of isolation, hearing only what he wants to hear, and what he wants to hear is what he believes, and anyone who detracts from his "visions" is eliminated.   All the upper military ranks in Russia are nothing but Putin's yes men, flunkies and sycophants.  So, I'm not convinced Putin believes that.   

However, I do believe Putin knows if all these failures continue to mount, he's personally doomed.  If he's overthrown, it won't be a kind overthrow as it was with Khrushchev, who didn't play the monster role Stalin did while in power, which is what I think saved him.  

Putin has been vile, and modern Russian history is replete with coups and the violent elimination of political opponents, and I'm of the opinion there's a Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg cabal within the Russian military.  If he attempts to go nuclear, I think that may well trigger a coup. 

P&D Geopolitical Edition

By Rich Kozlovich Tags:  P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukrainian War, and Donald Trump, BRICS

Have you ever heard of BRICS nations?  BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, who are attempting to end the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, and wish to dominate the world's economy, mostly being pushed by China, and there's a lot of money involved and they "represent" around 3 billion of the world's population, and I use the word "represent" loosely.  And a lot of problems.

5 factors limiting the impact of the BRICS nations, which makes it clear this is all about China and their desire to dominate the world, all of which is now and will always be the fly in the ointment.  So in my really unsophisticated opinion, who cares?  Remember, this stuff makes my eyes roll up into the back of my head.  

This article article by Rebecca Holcomb,  What happens if the United States loses its world reserve currency status?, tries to explain it, and it isn't pretty, but I don't know if it's represents reality.  The main problem regarding the dollar as I see it is the national debt, and the unending devaluation of the dollar through inflation.  These countries are all fake economies.  They aren't capital generating nations, they can't create their own national markets to sustain any kind of growing economy.  

The U.S. has a huge internal market, and is a natural capital generating nation with an unending capacity for innovation.  We can grow our own food, generate all our energy needs internally, develop our own armament, defend the nation on our own, and if the nation's leaders would just do it, pay off the national debt with the 150 trillion dollars in assets of the federal government. 

As I said, all this stuff makes my eyes roll back into my head, but my grandfather was one of the world's great economists.  He said if you spend more than you make, you'll go broke, and China's broke.  China is central to this scheme, and yet they can't create it's own internal market to sustain their expansion economically or militarily, and other than coal, they seriously lack energy resources. 

These nations need the U.S. Does the U.S. need these other nations?  

I'll have more on this later, but if the Russo/Ukrainian War wasn't so terrible to so many innocent people, it would be laughable.  No one was prepared for this invasion, including Putin.  Everyone is running out of military hardware.  Ukraine needs far more munitions daily than the west has totally.  The western nations are depleting their own defensive stock by giving it to Ukraine.  So much so that when this over Ukraine may be one of the most militarized nations on Earth.  

Russia is buying drones from Iran, and they're negotiating with the Taliban for used U.S. military equipment left behind by Biden in Afghanistan.  Putin is recruiting massive numbers, but massive numbers are leaving Russia to avoid being drafted, and no on believes any of these young men will be properly trained or equipped.     

Putin is outraged the west is going to supply advanced aircraft, calling it an escalation.  Ya gotta give it to Putin for brass.  He starts a war, and undeclared war, with a nation with little military capacity, and then is outraged when it goes against him calling their efforts to defend themselves an escalation.  No, this invasion was the escalation, going from peace to war was the escalation, not what Ukraine is doing. 

There's a lot more going on regarding economics, and Russia is in trouble, economically, militarily, industrially, and most importantly, demographically.  The surrounding nations are no longer intimidated my Russia and are making a lot of economic decisions that over the long haul is going to diminish Russia.  

Is Ukraine any better off? No, but at this point, they don't need to be as they're being completely subsidized by western nations, especially the U.S., but that can't and won't last forever.  I do think there has to be a settlement soon.  This has exhausted the world and has exposed incredible weaknesses in all nations involved, including the U.S.

P&D Geopolitics Edition

By Rich Kozlovich

I subscribe to Geopolitical Futures, Jamestown Foundation, Foreign Affairs, and review Institute for the Study of War, International Crisis Group, and others.  All of which I find is impossible to keep up with, because the discord around the world is everywhere and is mind boggling, so I'm attempting to explore how best to handle it all.  I've decided to use China and Russia as my focal points, and then whatever comes up between them and other nations.  At least for now.  

When you read a lot of history and review a lot of modern events it doesn't take long to realize you have to develop a foundational philosophy in order to grasp the underlying foundational social paradigms that create all these problems.  As a result, I've developed an "it's the basics" three part philosophy.   "Demographics, geographics and economics" determines the outcome of everything, and those who handle those three "basics" best, wins.  Most, but not all, of what involves America in international relations will be covered in regular editions of P&D.

So, here goes my first Edition of P&D Geopolitics.  I will be quoting directly from some of the articles I receive, or review, but without links as for the subscription sites.  I  hope you find it all worthy of your attention. 

China

Currently China's investments in their military must be staggering.  They've upgraded their naval forces including doing a lot of research of electromagnetic propulsion systems, and their air force has been revamped for launching drones, also in the form of swarms from sea based platforms.  This apparently for use in amphibious landings.  Guess where that's intended? 

They're upgrading their drone technology to match America's large drones, which will give them mission capability in "reconnaissance, area denial and control, precision strike, cluster strike and damage assessment."  All of which will be "all military" integrated, all of which is being tested over and around Taiwan.  

The world is noticing and doesn't like it.  Japan will be conducting a military exercise for the defense of what the Japanese call the Senkaku Island, which will enhance potential joint military operations in opposition to China's aggressive intentions and actions in those waters, and elsewhere, including Taiwan.  

"The four Quad members (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) started the Malabar naval exercises in Japan. This comes amid heightened tensions related to North Korea's flurry of missile tests. Japan's prime minister this week reaffirmed the country's commitment to increasing defense spending, crafting a new security strategy and acquiring long-range weapons."

The newly installed Philippine government is developing a military modernization program.  And I've no doubt this is a reflection of China's bully boy economic/military tactics involving fishing in Philippine waters.  China is attempting to claim all of the South China Sea belongs to them and will enforce that view with naval might.

Once again, the cost to China for all this is immense, and it's money they don't have.   Like Russia, China is not a natural capital generating nation, they need the American market, badly.  Their economy is flat, and Trump imposed restrictions, which was largely criticized by many, is responsible, especially in the chip market. Xi is another Mao with a total commitment to Marx/Leninist economic theory.  The world should be thankful he's been in effect installed as leader for life as he's going to lead them into economic oblivion.  

Russia

Putin is in deep trouble.  His army is pulling back just about everywhere from captured territory in Ukraine, with Ukrainian forces making the Russian army look like a third world militia, with a lack of ability to even supply their forces with needed material, and most likely even food.  All caused because Ukrainian forces are preventing it, who is playing this out in a very cagey manner, seemingly in the belief time is on their side.  Imagine that!  As a result, Russia is ceding back to Ukraine territory they conquered and then proclaimed was now a part of Russia.   

While Russia still controls 15% of Ukraine, and has devastated their civilian population, national infrastructure, this is no longer going in Russia's direction.  Everything Putin claimed he wanted to prevent, is now becoming reality.  NATO has expanded, and he can't do a thing about it, Ukraine wants to now join NATO, his army has been exposed as a teddy bear, he's been exposed as a dim light bulb to the world and has lost influence everywhere. 

Moldova is wanting to abandon Russia, has supported Ukraine, and has discussed joining NATO.  In May the "European Parliament declared Crimea is Ukraine, the Donbas is Ukraine, Kyiv is Ukraine, and they always will be Ukraine."

They've spent untold amounts of money on drone technology, that not only didn't work very well, they can't manufacture replacement drones.  Replacement parts are now largely unavailable because of supply chain disruption, and I'm sure economic embargoes over his invasion of Ukraine in this undeclared war.   So, now they're buying them from China and ....of all places .... Iran.  Hundreds of them.  The impact on his budgetary issues?  That has to be huge.   Not to mention he's used up massive amounts of military hardware he can't replace. 

All this is followed by public proclamations of why it isn't Putin's fault.  Putin's losing in his undeclared war, he has to find common ground with the Taliban as he can't afford terrorist issues with them, he's making economic deals with Pakistan and China and has to try and find a way of bringing China, India and Pakistan into some kind of favorable economic arrangement for Russia, which I find chuckle worthy, since Pakistan and China are not natural capital generating nations, and India has a lot of trouble with Pakistan and China.  And he's blaming everyone around him for his failures, with an alleged agreement having been offered to Putin that will require Putin to publicly declare all he's done has been a failure.   For a dictator in Russia, that's not a good sign. 

P&D Today

De Omnibus Dubitandum

---

By Rich Kozlovich

P&D is a small blog by any evaluation, but it's read regularly in over 10 countries around the world daily.  On October 8, 2022, in that last 24 hours, P&D was read in: United States, Turkey, France, Germany, Russia, Singapore, Netherlands, Romania and unnamed "Other" countries.  

In the previous seven days P&D was also read in Slovenia, Italy and Ukraine and in the previous 30 days, Indonesia, Sweden, Thailand, Australia, Vietnam, Brazil, Cambodia were added.  I estimate I have readership in at least 20 nations around the world, either daily, weekly or occasionally.  Pretty good for a bugman. 

Big list for today, starting with this Thought For the Day followed by John Droz Jr's., The Media Balance Newsletter: 10/10/22.   

Then I've listed five commentaries, and 15 links.  The theme?  America and the world in a crisis of definition, clarity and understanding, and the left is to blame, supported by those who claim to be on the right.  

As for this folly of America's involvement in this Russo/Ukrainian War, I'm left with this conclusion. Ukraine is done whether they win or lose. Their infrastructure is finished and no one's going to pay to fix it. Their population is dissipated and once they start making lives for themselves somewhere else, many will not return and they already had a demographic problem, just like the rest of Europe and Russia.

They're arrogantly telling everyone they won't negotiate but between 40 and 60 percent of their military is made up of mercenaries. Who's paying for that? We are to the tune of tens of billions of untraceable and uncontrolled dollars. They have no army. So corrupt beggars have no right to be choosers.

Also, I keep asking myself:  Since the Ukraine government was one of the most corrupt on the planet, one the was involved with, would the Ukrainian people be any worse off or better off if the Russians swept over the nation without destroying everything?  My conclusion is they would be no worse off and maybe better.

This was a European problem and we should have stayed out of it, and now it appears there are CIA and U.S. Special Forces in Ukraine. How long before NATO forces, aka, American troops are there?

I would have never involved America beyond condemning them in every international forum available and enacted economic sanctions. Europe brought this on themselves, with their arrogant and stupid energy policies that obligated them to the Russians, so let them fix it or not. Haven't we had enough of their stupidity over the last 120 years?

If you're a moral person you have to be upset at the human suffering they've endured.  If you're a rational person you have to recognize what happens in these countries isn't our responsibility.  In short, from a practical viewpoint, I don't care what happens to those countries, this has been going on for centuries, what makes anyone believe we can fix them?  Putin can't properly occupy these nations,and if he's too abusive he'll face terrorist attacks, but either way, how does that impact America? Where is the advantage to America for getting involved?

I don't see any more reason for getting involved in European conflicts any more than we are already stuck with.  And certainly no more reason to get into this war than there was in our getting into WWI. 

Woodrow Wilson was an Anglophile, and while he publicly took a position he wanted to keep America out of the war, he was in fact working behind the scenes to push America into the war.  The Lusitania and Mexico/Germany scenarios (Zimmerman Note) were excuses.  Just that excuses!  They knew there was no way Germany could help Mexico and the Lusitania was a British passenger ship illegally carrying contraband to support England, and in no way justified war just because there were Americans on board.  

He should have beat up on the Brits who knew this ship was a legitimate target because of it's cargo, not used it as an excuse to help push America into WWI, the greatest disaster of human history as it created the framework for everything that's happened since, and is considered nothing more than a prelude to WWII.  All were false narratives that "justified" America throwing away 117,000 young America lives, with over 300, 000 casualties, many of those young men's lives destroyed forever. 

I do wish more people had read the Guns of August as I see the same pattern of insanity being played out by politicians and the media.  America has no skin in this game and needs to stay home. I wouldn't have given them ten cents of our money and wouldn't let one ounce of American blood be spilled in their behalf.  We can't fix those who won't be fixed.  None of this is not our responsibility, and none of this is our fault!  

And it's my view by the time this all plays out, assuming there's no nuclear exchange, the EU will be done, Europe and Russia will be an economic and social mess turning both into third world societies, China will suffer serious economic downturns, and if America stays out of it and stops giving money to these corrupt thugs, money we don't have, America wins. 

If we're caught between them and us. I'm all for us.

Commentaries

• CA to Provide Transgender Surgeries Without Parent Consent By Kelli Ballard
• Placing The Blame For Europe's Energy And Economic Crisis By Francis Menton
• What Can We Learn by Comparing Relative Living Standards in OECD Nations? By Dan Mitchell
• Hurricane hype, lies, censorship – and reality  By Paul Driessen
• Have You Had Enough? By Ray DiLorenzo

America In Crisis

• The Constitution is Color-Blind
• Are ‘Good Americans’ to Join Russians and Germans in Infamy?

Big Government Tyranny and Abuse

• Alabama landowner heads to court over a snake that isn’t there

Global Warming/Hurricanes

• The Media’s Rank Dishonesty About ‘Climate Change’ And Hurricane Ian
• It would be nice if progressives concentrated on fixing the man-made disasters they caused instead of theoretical ones they make up
• Margaret Thatcher and the Rise of the Climate Ruse

Hypocrisy, Democrat Style

• Shocking Leaked Audio Reveals Racism Against "The Blacks" by Los Angeles Democrat City Council Members
• How much Democrat hypocrisy can America stand?

Islamophobia – or – National Suicide Anyone?

• France: Muslim stabs six people, takes out Qur’an and prays, cops say it’s not ‘linked to Islamist radicalization’
• Germany: New study finds that ‘Islamophobia’ is widespread and growing
• Uganda: Muslim converts to Christianity, Muslims flog him and destroy his home while screaming ‘Infidel!’

Pandemic: Lies, Myths, Truth and Hyperbole

• Florida: Covid Vaccines Are Dangerous to Young Men
• Hillsdale College Academy Scientist: Government’s Handling of COVID Pandemic a ‘Disaster’ That Ruined Public Health and Science

Russo/Ukrainian War

• Should the West Seek an Off-Ramp in Ukraine?
• Reaffirming Ukraine’s Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity at the UN

 

 

 

Constant as the North Star

Griner Is Home Now: Russia!

By Rich Kozlovich 

As I've noted in the past I belong to an eclectic e-mail group which discusses topics that range far and wide, daily, and often.  This was one of the topics,  VP Kamala Harris is slammed as a hypocrite for condemning Russia's 'wrongful detention' of cannabis smuggler Brittney Griner when SHE locked up a THOUSAND Californians for pot possession as state AG, Daily Mail (UK), by Melissa Koenig.  

What is it with the Daily Mail and the Brits with these really long titles for their articles?  Well, at any rate, the author goes on to say:  

Vice President Kamala Harris has been slammed online as a hypocrite after she condemned Russian officials for sentencing basketball star Brittney Griner to nine years in prison for drug smuggling. The WNBA star was found guilty on Thursday by a judge who rejected her claim she accidentally brought a marijuana pen into the country. Prosecutors had asked that she be jailed for nine-and-a-half years, six months less than the maximum of 10 years in prison. Her attorneys say they have ten days to appeal the verdict and sentencing, and that the typical sentence handed down for such a crime is six years....

Our Group shared our thoughts.  

 

Her sentence was no doubt per-ordained and very politically useful. Since Biden wants her back to appease Progressive pressure groups, it serves Russia's interests to give her a long sentence. Russia then has more leverage in any exchange negotiations.  I agree with those who say nine years is insane ... but at the same time, she deserves some punishment for doing what she did. She hates the United States and yet want us to save her now.

Let's face it, if "she" wasn't a black, lesbian sports celebrity, no one in America would know this was going on, or care, and the government would just shrug their shoulders.    And she's not been inappropriately criminalized by the Russians, she admitted she violated their drug laws claiming she didn't intend to break the law.  Really?  Does that mean she didn't know it was illegal to smuggle illegal drugs into Russia?  Who could possibly believe such an excuse? 

She thought her celebrity would allow her to get away with a lot of crap like they get away with in America with the backing of leftists in the media, Hollywood and the government.   And now she wants the country she despises to save her from a country she once called her "real home", or some such claim.  

Now this America hater says:

On July 4, Griner sent a letter to the White House appealing for her freedom directly to President Joe Biden. Griner wrote that she missed her wife, family and teammates, adding she spent the Fourth of July holiday thinking about the meaning of freedom.

Wow!  Did she had an epiphany?  Is it possibly she believes America isn't so bad after all?  Is this kind of like that old saying: There are no atheists in foxholes, so maybe, just maybe, there are no America haters in Russian jails?  One has to wonder just how terrible and racist America will look to Griner after nine years in a gulag, all the while no longer being treated like royalty and not being paid huge sums of money to play a kid's game?

How does someone so inconsequential become so important?  And the Biden administration wants this America hating pot head out so badly they're willing to trade her for a "convicted Russian arms dealer, aka 'Merchant of Death"', who can bring death, pain and suffering to untold numbers of innocent people.  Imagine that!  And to make it look as if it's all about justice and not political pandering to leftist loons, they want the Russians to throw in that ex-marine they imprisoned for spying.  The one they ignored all this time. 

As for the Russians, as corrupt as their "justice" system is, this is one time I applaud them.  

As for the Biden administration, they should keep up what they're doing, since the more they pander to these misfits the less anyone cares what they think, and the more despicable they look, so I applaud them also. 

• Joe Biden flexes his double standards, declares Brittney Griner prison sentence for cannabis ‘unacceptable’

Here's another thought.  

She's worth about five million supposedly, and she has "married" another woman, and so now I wonder who legally controls that five million?  And in nine years how much will be left?  And if her "wife" divorces her, what happens to that money? 

As for me, I don't care what happens to Griner or her money because if we ignore all the emotional clabber from the media and cut to the chase......she's guilty!  Imagine that!

The World as I See It: Russia and the Unending "Arc of Instability"

By Rich Kozlovich 

I originally posted this piece on  Saturday, May 8, 2021, which I think was well thought out and if I may be so bold, prescient.  Events have taken place that require an update, so I decided to do it again.   Turkey, and Nagorno-Karabakh, who no one heard of before, are now players in Putin's insanity, which really defines the word irony.

Turkish diplomatic activity. During a phone call over the weekend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the war in Ukraine, regional issues and bilateral relations. Elsewhere, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov agreed to visit Turkey with a military delegation on June 8 to explore the creation of a security corridor for agriculture exports. Later, Erdogan spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss food security and security cooperation and said he was ready to mediate any potential negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

Nagorno-Karabakh in the Shadow of Ukraine

What Russia's War Means for Armenia and Azerbaijan

By Thomas de Waal

Mr. Ridvan Bari Urcosta, of Geopolitical Futures posted this piece, The Arc of Instability in Eastern Europe, which I thought was an excellent analysis.  A subscription to Geopolitical futures is required, and I highly recommend it, but I'm going to cover the highlights along with my take on the parties and issues involved.

I liked his highlighting the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which isn’t being presented in the news much, if at all, and could become a flash point.  I especially liked his highlighting the Kievan Rus history.  That is, in my opinion, an important piece of history that needs to be understood when dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, the barrier nations and Turkey.

I will say this.  The West is incapable of resolving the issues surrounding the barrier countries of Russia, and those of what was the Soviet Union.  The social paradigms for the west and these nations are just too different and too far away.

The natural social paradigms - both positive and negative - make Russia and Turkey the natural arbiters there - as much as I hate to admit it.

Furthermore, I keep asking what benefit does America, or the West for that matter, gain from interfering in these countries’ internal problems, which are historically unending?  Not only do we not have the expertise to fix it, neither does anyone else, including themselves, and those efforts are expensive.  Let Russia, Turkey and the countries involved pay to fix it.  If they can!  And understand this. Border disputes are now cropping up constantly in what was once part of the Soviet Union. 

When they became independent, they became aware of their needs, wants, and cultural differences, which were not permitted under the rule of the Soviets.  Now those divisions are highlighted among states like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and that kind of problem is pandemic throughout central Asia, and has always been a problem as long as there was no overriding ruling power. 

The West, that being especially the Western European nations, are leaky vessels as allies, even when doing something is in their own benefit.  They’re disjointed in their thinking and goals, and that’s been the historical paradigm for Europe forever.  Including Western kings helping and supporting the Ottoman Empire attacking Christian kingdoms in Europe when they thought it was to their benefit. 

Here's my take on these events.  Both Russia and Turkey are broke, neither have truly effective militaries, especially Russia, whose demographic pyramid is all out of whack and the 15 to 50 demographic is filled with alcoholics, drug users, victims of AIDS and drug resistant TB.

Neither are natural capital generators, and even if these barrier countries collapse into tyrannies, why does that matter to the United States?  Either economically, militarily or socially?

It's not our job to fix the world.  Jews have a term for it: Tikkun Olam:

"A Jewish concept defined by acts of kindness performed to perfect or repair the world. The phrase is found in the Mishnah, a body of classical rabbinic teachings. It is often used when discussing issues of social policy, ensuring a safeguard to those who may be at a disadvantage."

Well, we've tried that and it fails over the long run due to three things.  Geography, demography, and economics.  

We’re too far away, we’re mostly confused about the issues all these various populations have, as a result we don't have the answers to their problems, and finally, we don’t have the money.  If we did understand the social complexities, and if we did have the money, it wouldn’t matter as all these endeavors are Lewis Carroll rabbit holes that can never be fixed or filled, and all that's presented here is applicable to Afghanistan and the western and American military units leaving, which I will address in another piece. 

History is the foundation of truth, because truth has a historical foundation and context, and everything we're told should have some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.  If what's presented to us fails in either of those categories - it's wrong.  And we need to start understanding that.

 

The World as I See It: Russia and the Unending "Arc of Instability"

By Rich Kozlovich 

Mr. Ridvan Bari Urcosta, of Geopolitical Futures posted this piece, The Arc of Instability in Eastern Europe, which I thought was an excellent analysis.  A subscription to Geopolitical futures is required, and I highly recommend it, but I'm going to cover the highlights along with my take on the parties and issues involved.

I liked his highlighting the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which isn’t being presented in the news much, if at all, and could become a flash point.  I especially liked his highlighting the Kievan Rus history.  That is, in my opinion, an important piece of history that needs to be understood when dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, the barrier nations and Turkey.

I will say this.  The West is incapable of resolving the issues surrounding the barrier countries of Russia, and those of what was the Soviet Union.  The social paradigms for the west and these nations are just too different and too far away.

The natural social paradigms - both positive and negative - make Russia and Turkey the natural arbiters there - as much as I hate to admit it.

Furthermore, I keep asking what benefit does America, or the West for that matter, gain from interfering in these countries’ internal problems, which are historically unending?  Not only do we not have the expertise to fix it, neither does anyone else, including themselves, and those efforts are expensive.  Let Russia, Turkey and the countries involved pay to fix it.  If they can!  And understand this. Border disputes are now cropping up constantly in what was once part of the Soviet Union. 

When they became independent, they became aware of their needs, wants, and cultural differences, which were not permitted under the rule of the Soviets.  Now those divisions are highlighted among states like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and that kind of problem is pandemic throughout central Asia, and has always been a problem as long as there was no overriding ruling power. 

The West, that being especially the Western European nations, are leaky vessels as allies, even when doing something is in their own benefit.  They’re disjointed in their thinking and goals, and that’s been the historical paradigm for Europe forever.  Including Western kings helping and supporting the Ottoman Empire attacking Christian kingdoms in Europe when they thought it was to their benefit. 

Here's my take on these events.  Both Russia and Turkey are broke, neither have truly effective militaries, especially Russia, whose demographic pyramid is all out of whack and the 15 to 50 demographic is filled with alcoholics, drug users, victims of AIDS and drug resistant TB.

Neither are natural capital generators, and even if these barrier countries collapse into tyrannies, why does that matter to the United States?  Either economically, militarily or socially?

It's not our job to fix the world.  Jews have a term for it: Tikkun Olam:

 "A Jewish concept defined by acts of kindness performed to perfect or repair the world. The phrase is found in the Mishnah, a body of classical rabbinic teachings. It is often used when discussing issues of social policy, ensuring a safeguard to those who may be at a disadvantage."

Well, we've tried that and it fails over the long run due to three things.  Geography, demography, and economics.  

We’re too far away, we’re mostly confused about the issues all these various populations have, as a result we don't have the answers to their problems, and finally, we don’t have the money.  If we did understand the social complexities, and if we did have the money, it wouldn’t matter as all these endeavors are Lewis Carroll rabbit holes that can never be fixed or filled, and all that's presented here is applicable to Afghanistan and the western and American military units leaving, which I will address in another piece. 

History is the foundation of truth, because truth has a historical foundation and context, and everything we're told should have some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.  If what's presented to us fails in either of those categories - it's wrong.  And we need to start understanding that.