Tag Archives: NATO

Economic Collapse May Be the Only Way to Prevent World War III

The tensions between the West and Russia over the Ukraine have escalated over the past few months with an almost daily occurrence of provocations and belligerent talk mostly from members of NATO.  In response, Russia sent a naval contingent to the Caribbean in a show of force.  Some of the Western provocations include:

  • Polish President Andrzej Duda’s willingness to place U.S. nuclear weapons on Polish soil;
  • German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ s call for reinstitution of a draft;
  • A hand-delivered check by Biden to Volodymyr Zelensky as part of the $95 billion U.S. “defense” package for Ukraine
  • A request by Zelensky for Westerners to train troops on Ukrainian soil; and
  • US and NATO okaying Ukraine to fire long-range American weapons as much as 12 miles into Russian territory

It is apparent that, until Russian President Vladimir Putin capitulates to Western demands in regard to Ukraine, NATO will continue to push the envelop.  In hindsight, analysts such as Paul Craig Roberts have, from the start, urged Putin to swiftly finish off Ukraine militarily and replace the Zelensky regime with one favorable to Russia.  A protracted struggle, Roberts warned, would give the West more time to supplement Ukraine: “The conflict dragged on, because having declared the intervention limited, the Kremlin left Kiev to continue the war, thus playing into Western hands as the West gradually widened the war.” *

Unfortunately for Russia, Paul Craig Roberts’s prognostication is now coming to fruition. 

The counter argument to a more aggressive Russia is that Putin realizes that the West is run by a pack of sociopaths who would have no qualms launching WWIII, which would include the use of nuclear weapons, or ignite a major military conflagration in the area.  The Russian president sees that the West holds a decisive military advantage over Russia even if it allied with China.  The U.S. alone spends more than the combined expenditures of the top nine militaries in the world.

The United States has thus the ability and means to operate and intervene in almost any sector of the world.  It is able to do so because it has had, for the longest time, an economy which was able to not only produce goods for the domestic market and also for its foreign adventures.  It takes wealth to be able to arm, transport, deploy, and maintain men in distant lands.

Because of America’s relatively free economy, it could produce a seemingly endless supply of military hardware for itself, but also to buy off client states and fund proxy wars.  In contrast, the Soviet Union could never export communism in any significant way after World War II because it lacked the means to do so.  Its economy was a basket case that could barely feed its citizens. 

While the U.S. may have the military capability to be the world’s policeman, its actions in the Ukraine are ultimately controlled by ideology.  And, for the longest time, U.S. foreign policy has been one of interventionism and war with the ultimate goal of the establishment of a one-world state.  Its proxy war in Ukraine is designed to cripple Russia, which stands as a roadblock to this long-desired goal.

Since it is apparent that the principles guiding U.S. foreign policy are not going to change anytime soon, the nation will continue on its bellicose course until it no longer has the means to do so.  This would mean a financial crisis, most likely in the form of a dollar collapse, which would ground the economy to a halt. 

In such a scenario, the United States would be following the course that Great Britain took after World War II, when its empire could no longer be sustained since the country insanely exhausted itself in the conduct of fighting two world wars. 

A similar, earlier historical example was the Western Roman empire, which, through currency debasement, heavy taxation and government largesse, ruined its economy and then could no longer maintain its empire.

 The ideology of Great Britain and Rome did not change, however, they simply no longer had the means to sustain and expand their empires.

Despite massive deficits, record-setting inflation, and a recent bank crisis in March, 2023, a financial crisis does not appear to be on the horizon.  Although things can change quickly, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. empire is in no danger from internal collapse.

While an economic collapse would mean misery for millions of Americans, it would be, in a sense, retribution for the nation’s murderous and costly foreign policy, which has brought, and still is bringing, untold death and destruction to millions of people.  

*Paul Craig Roberts, “Normalizing War with Russia,” PaulCraigRoberts.org, 6 June 2016, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/06/06/normalizing-war-with-russia/

President Trump’s Role in the Ukraine War

With his usual braggadocio, former President Donald Trump has promised that if returned to the White House he would end the Ukraine conflict within hours and claims, as many of his supporters do, that the war would never have taken place had he been in office.  Like most of his campaign promises during his 2016 presidential run – drain the swamp, pull troops out of Afghanistan, build a wall – very few were accomplished, despite the fact that the former president had a Republican House and Senate at the start of his first term.

Listening to Trump’s often incoherent statements on the Ukrainian imbroglio shows that the ex-chief executive has learned little from his four years in the Oval Office.  While talk of ending wars in a few hours may garner popular support, translating them into actual results is a far different and, to say the least, difficult matter, as Trump should now realize after his fruitless years as president.

Trump had a chance to de-escalate tensions in the Ukraine that had been building especially after the Western-inspired coup of February, 2014 which replaced the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.  Yet, the former president did nothing to remedy the situation and, in fact, worsened matters by providing military hardware to the Ukraine, which the Obama Administration had denied.

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the region’s geo-political realities, Trump decided to provide the Ukraine with military equipment.  In December, 2017 the U.S. shipped, among other weaponry, Javelin anti-tank missile systems, with the first sale completed in March of the following year to the sum of $47 million.  Reportedly, the former president was convinced by his advisors that the military aid would be “good for U.S. business.” 

If one considers the military industrial complex a vibrant part of the U.S. economy and not a parasitical drain that redistributes scarce resources away from the production of useful consumer goods into the creation of destabilizing and murderous weapons of war, then – “yes” – military spending is good for business.  For those, like Trump, who support such an idea are apparently unfamiliar with Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler who rightly called “defense spending” a racket:

I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers.  In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism.*

After the provocative action of supplying the Ukraine with military hardware, the Trump Administration inflamed relations further by pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) which was agreed to by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The landmark treaty banned missiles with range between 500 and 5,500 km (310-3,400 miles).**

The U.S. accused Russia of non-compliance to the terms of the treaty, a charge that the Russians and many military analysts denied.  This, of course, led to a greater level of distrust between the two nations and went against candidate Trump’s aims of lessening tensions between the two powers.

Trump, as with the pro-war Western media, is ignorant of the historical context that played into Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine.  It is a well-established fact that the U.S. and Western powers gave assurances to Russia as far back as when the Berlin Wall came down that NATO would not expand eastward.  That promise has been repeatedly broken as NATO now includes 31 nations with Sweden set to come on board in 2024.***

Making matters worse, the Biden Administration, the war mongers in Congress, and the U.S.’s NATO lapdogs have escalated matters with tremendous financial and military assistance, which has done little to stop the Russians, but has resulted in the needless slaughter of thousands and the wholesale destruction of Ukrainian territory.  The introduction of cluster bombs into the fray and the promise of F-16 fighter-jets capable of carrying nuclear war heads has heightened the possibility of a general conflagration. 

 None of the declared Republican presidential contenders have critiqued the former president’s reckless Ukrainian policy.  Some of the candidates (Chris Christie, Nikki Haley) have instead insanely called for greater support of the Zelensky regime!    

The American involvement in the Ukrainian War has nothing to do with its national security, but with the interests of the U.S. Empire.  The tragedy of the Trump Presidency is that things were supposed to be different.  Instead of non-intervention, the Administration armed Ukraine, stationed troops in Syria, assassinated an Iranian general on a Middle East peace mission, and committed a host of other head scratching acts which went against candidate Trump’s pledge of an “America First” foreign policy that propelled him to victory in 2016.

To think that things will be different in a second go-around is clearly delusional, as the former president is now campaigning with never-ending war proponent Senator Lindsey Graham.   

*See War is a Racket, Port Townsend, WA.: Feral House, 2003; 1935.

**“INF Nuclear Treaty: US Pulls Out of Cold War-Era Pact With Russia,” BBC, 2 August 2019.   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565

***Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 22 January 2022 ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com