#feel free to use the content to point out that the “parasite” countries your conservatives love to shit on actually DO help the US

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Trumpolitics and geopolitical implactions

Grrreeetings my dear students ! I AM RETURNED !!! With another lesson ! This time, some of you made the horrifying mistake of inciting my teaching urge on the geopolitics of trump drooling on Greenland, and I decided I would take a good long look at that AND at other targets of potential expansion for the USA. I am sorry to inform you that memes will be sadly not that present in the first two points, because they're where I put down the structure of this thing. First off, Context ! 1) The Context As you may have seen, Trump has recently been on a tweeting spree about territories he'd like to add to the USA or bring under control in some way. From calling Canada the 51st state to claiming that controlling Greenland was "an absolute necessity", and even making open threats to Panama about taking back control of the Canal of Panama.

And considering what is being looked at, I'm going to add Mexico to the mix, because it's been targeted with threats of invasion-and-or-intervention to deal with the Cartels. 2) The Goals The goals of all these outside operations can fit in a clean-enough categorization : - Security : this is about protecting US security against an external threat, whatever form it may take - Ressource availability : the access to the territory's ressources is important to Trump or his administration - Trade control : the territory offers the ability or potential to control global trade routes Those are the three big geopolitical aims of an expansionist policy in regards to the USA. Other countries, such as Russia for instance, could have demographic aims to counteract a demographic collapse, but that's not the case of the USA. Of course, there's also Trump's personnal goal, common among strongmen : looking like a badass warmaster that does war so good and is so successful, wow, such medal, much military.

3) Oh, CANADA ! Canada, land of snow and forests, maple syrup and poutine, land of the eh and dedicated contributor to the expansion of the Geneva Convention. Trump has been pretty insistent on "joking" about it becoming the 51st State, despite a great many Canadians signaling very loudly that they do not find it funny. On one hand, making insulting jokes about your allies and ignoring their protests and then wondering why you aren't popular is violently American (As a French, I have close to 18 years of personnal experience on that), but on the other, this is Trump, so is it really a joke ? So, what would be the benefits of invading Canada ? Well, they would be many from a geopolitical point of view. It"s just that there are as many, or more, inconvenients. The big question being, will Trump even LOOK at those inconvenients ? But that's for later. First off, resources. Canada is ridiculously resource rich, owing in part to its very large size. I'm sure you've seen a few memes about Americans finding the biggest deposit of X or Y resources at random, well the only reason Canada doesn't do that too is because it is far less populated and its population is far more centralized. But the potential is there, absolutely. And even better, those resources are VERY varied : minerals, hydrocarbons, and absolute fuckton of wood and, perhaps less often thought about, fresh water. So on that front, Canada would undeniably be a very attractive catch. Second, security. Canada would allow the USA control of roughly a third-to-half of the entire Arctic region, allowing extensive protection of the northern flank, something that may be of interest in current times due to how light and under-strength the Canadian armed forces are, which also serves to make it a (seemingly) easy target to occupy. Third, trade control. Oh that's right, Canada has the trifecta. See, with the Arctic melting, the near-mythical North-West passage is opening, allowing for way faster transit from the Bering straight to the Atlantic, and yes this is damn important, the Panama Canal was opened in part because that passage didn't exist, but now it does for longer and longer periods of time, and Canada controls roughly 80 to 90% of its length. And control of that trade route means cash from ships that take it (taxes, maintenance, rescue when need be ...), it's a whole thing. A minor interest, though not put forward by Trump would be the "natural borders" approach, or territory continuity. Basically, considering that Canada is, by its geographical situation, American territory-to-be. That's ... pretty disturbing, and like I said, Trump didn't put it forward, but keep in mind it's part of the debate.

Now, for the inconvenients, which uh ... well they aren't few. First off, Canadians. The "eh" dudes are often represented as passive and friendly and polite, but they are certainly not interested in becoming Americans, especially by force, and considering just how many guns they have, well they have the means to make that displeasure known quite virulently. Which creates an entire administrative mess where they have to decide if they confiscate weapons inside Canada, or only those of Canadians, and what happens in the rest of the US, and what if ... so complicated. Messy. Either way, while the invasion wouldn't necessarily be that difficult (due to smol, US-dependant Canadian forces), the occupation would be WAAAAAAY harder. Especially since Canada is rather big and empty, giving PLENTY of room for partisan groups to spread, hide and ambush anyone that leaves urban centres. Second, Nato. Now, do I think Nato would mount a task force to push US troops out of Canada ? Lmao no, we're way too dependant on US security infrastructure for that. And since so many people still seem to think that, when France tries to push European strategic independance it's actually a French bid for control of the EU or us trying to shill our industries, well I don't see it changing without some major shock, even as things are. Poland does seem to be speedrunning this bitch though, so maybe we can do something there. But no, Nato wouldn't stop the invasion, but the invasion WOULD collapse Nato, and I can already hear the Vatniks and Tankies getting a stiffie just from imagining it.

Nato wouldn't survive because, in this scenario, the most powerful member of the alliance attacks another member. At that point, there's no confidence left, no trust, nothing. And that has ... rather big ... consequences. For instance, Russia feeling entirely uninhibited and allowed to invade as they please. To avoid that, the only option is to have a truly gigantic "fuck off" button, and only one such button exists : the nuclear one. So that's nuclear proliferation going back onto the table and at least half of the eastern part of the EU reaching for nuclear programs. Poland at the very least, Finland most likely can too. And then there's the rest of the World. Unless the French president at the time points out that our nuclear umbrella does actually extend over our eastern allies (it does) and actually manages to convince both Russia and our allies that it's true, and that's where I am profoundly unsure, considering how successful the US has been at propagandizing against France and presenting us as cowardly or unreliable. Remember when I said I had personnal experience with insulting jokes from the US ? At this point, I'm half convinced that the only way to convince Poland and co that we're reliable would be to help them develop nukes or just give them some, which ... same result anyway. So yeah, bad shit right there.

4) The land of LIES Greenland, or Groenland, an autonomous dependency of Denmark. A big place with not that much population. But, here again, geopolitical benefits can be found in taking it over : First off, resources. Though its resources aren't as varied as Canada's, Greenland is still very much a resource-rich place, and global warming makes more and more of those resources accessible, making it a very attractive target indeed. Security is the main reason put forth by Trump, and uh ... well it reveals a LOT in my opinion. See, the main security interest of Greenland is the ability to project control over one of the two main exits of the Arctic sea. With Greenland, Norway and Iceland, an arc is formed allowing control of that exit, as much as such a large span of sea can be controlled. The reason I say it's worrying is because there's already a US airbase there, Pituffik airbase, and Greenland is part of Nato. There's already an entire system in place to counter if the enemy is Russia. So the "absolute necessity" of controlling Greenland would indicate he has another enemy in mind. See why I'm worried ?

Now, would it be difficult to control Greenland ? No, not THAT much, it only has 57 000 people, so occupation wouldn't be too hard, hell, it would even be colonizable fairly easily. You know, the Russian model, displace parts of the local population to send them into the territory of the ethnic majority so as to isolate them, all while bussing in masses of ethnic-majority colonists to fill new jobs created by the occupation. Speaking of, Trump claimed Greenlanders wanted the US there, which contradicts local testimonies and declarations. Hmm, a strongman leader claiming a foreign territory for "security reasons" and saying the locals want his troops there, where have I seen that rethoric before .... Of course, here, we also see the collapse of Nato, with similar, or identical, consequences. It's possible, but rather unlikely in my opinion, that the Danish government could sell Greenland to maintain the illusion of still having Nato, but like I said, I don't buy it. Once again, Nato would have no real way of stopping it, since the US are the big fish in this pond.

And now that we've seen the two scenarios where Nato collapses, what would that mean for the US ? A whole lot of bad, actually. Because, see, if the USA feel free to invade Nato allies, then their military bases become liabilities, pre-established beach-heads from which they can prepare and launch offensives. So that would mean most, if not all, US bases in Europe getting closed damn near overnight, an d a rather difficult to manage diplomatic mess. That could also spook non-Nato countries into kicking out US forces, reducing the power projection capabilities of the US tremendously. Once allied ports would close to their ships, like the many, many, many French and British naval bases spread all around the globe that the US navy can use to resupply, refuel and rest. Airbases would close, forcing longer, more logistically difficult flights ... There's also the breakdown in training agreements, like the agreement that allows US special forces to train in the jungles of Guyane. Bet you didn't know about that. And then there's the military supplies in terms of equipment that becomes uncertain, because yes, the US military doesn't buy exclusively American, for instance they love Thales radars, which are French. And yes, they also buy from other European countries, it's just that since I'm French, I mostly think of French exemples. Fellow Europeans, add in the notes what you country produces that ends up on the US military shopping list ! So yes, while the collapse of Nato would leave Europe damn near butt naked in the face of Russian aggression, with no other option than to go balls to the walls, it would also hamper the US rather severely.

5) Panama, the Canal The Canal of Panama was made by the US, completed in 1914, and apparently Mister Trump wants it back because, le gasp, China allegedly has too much influence on it and, le gasp², US ships pay fees like everyone else. The Canal is, all things considered, the most straightforward option. It has one benefit only : trade control. But considering the location, that benefit is sizeable and long lasting. See, the Panama Canal is a reliable and rather safe option when compared to the intermitent and iceberg-filled Northwest Passage and the shit-weather festival that is the Cape Horn (which can also have icebergs, yay), so it's basically a guarantee for LOADS of maritime trafic. Control of that canal would allow to levy fees and, potentially, block passage to the ships of rival polities, like, say, China. Except China already has routes to feed its products to Europe and Africa that don't go through Panama, and for the eastern part of South America, I can absolutely see them throw a giant wad of cash at yet another pharaonic railway project. Not immediate, but not impossible either. And if it goes into the realm of dick-measuring contests (it will, Trump is involved), Xi absolutely will, on principle.

That doesn't mean control of the Canal isn't interesting, it absolutely is, but it's not AS interesting as he perhaps thinks.

And then there's the issue of Panama not being particularly enthused by the idea, weirdly enough. Would Panama's regular military be able to stop Trump ? Haha, no. I don't have any illusions on that, you don't, and I guarantee that Panama doesn't either. What they CAN do, however, is make it unsufferable to use. Cause collapses, force ships out of alignment to Evergreen it up in this bitch, guerilla-warfare patrols into an early grave, loads of stuff. And they would have volunteers from a lot of Latin America, due to flashbacks of US-backed dictatorships giving motivation to a lot of people.

In short, it would be a forever war for control of a string of water that would quickly end up costing a LOT more, in cash and lives, than it brings. 0/10, do not recommend, would not imperialism.

6) Mexico, Cartel time Ah, the Cartels, Mexico(s number 1 problem, and a big talking point for US conservatives. They have floated the idea of sending the military to deal with them several times, and it was even suggested recently to classify them as terrorists to justify the military intervention.

Here, again ,there's a single interest : security. The idea being that, if you off the drug dealers, then drugs won't be a problem anymore. Surely this simple and obvious reasoning has no flaw to it, right ? Well … First off, Cartels aren't easy to manage, due to how spread out they are. Then there's the fact they are rather heavily armed, which is part of why Mexico hasn't been able to deal with them. Cartel armories include some heavy weapons, and I can GUARANTEE that they've expanded those armories in preparation of a potential US army intervention, and that WILL include US weapons. So if that happen, prepare for the humiliation of losing Abrams tanks to gangers. Moreover, the afforementionned US-based trauma would also awaken here, ensuring that, despite how unpopular they are, the Cartels WOULD receive volunteers to reinforce them, simply on the basis that they'd be fighting an expansionist US.

Now add in that they have people inside the US, not just direct network members, but also affiliates and customers. Those groups are also violent and armed, and can be agitated fairly easily. If the US launch a military attack on the Cartels, I expect those affiliate gangs would mount assault on police precincts at the very least, and based on the performance of US cops at Uvalde and other cases, where they cowered when faced with a SINGLE assault rifle, I wonder how they'd react when faced by many, and potentially outnumbered. Would they all break and run ? No, most likely not. But enough would, since that would most likely happen all over the country. This would create a feeling of insecurity and danger that would be devastating for Trump. It would make him look weak.

So all in all, far from ideal.

7) The Rest of the Consequences

Yeah, I didn't look too much into the global effects … yet. Basically, Expansionist US = massive uncertainty, meaning economic confidence collapses, meaning stock prices go down in many places, economic paranoia blooms, worry takes hold of the planet and, oh would you look at that, a financial crisis. Is it a guarantee ? No, but depending on the scenario it's more or less likely. For instance, if it's the Greenland track, it's unlikely to cause a financial crisis, at least not immediately, it will have to wait until Nato openly and officially collapses (AKA the moment maintaining the charade isn't worthwhile anymore). The other three options though ? Yes. Canada is a major economic player, if it's invaded, economic actors will be scared. An invasion of Mexico is such a gigantic upheaval that it will cause shakeups in the worldwide economic network. And the Panama Canal being seized by a military intervention is basically like collapsing a cliff face into a fjord, the effect will be rapid, devastating and spectacular.

Then there's the loss of soft-power. In the first two scenario, the US immediately lose all credibility as an ally, anyone on their list of ally is informed that they'll be invaded the second it becomes beneficial, AKA an alliance with the US is utterly worthless, or even dangerous, unless you force yourself into a position where invading you is a waste (AKA poverty), and even then, your resources might spark an invasion anyway. In the last two, it erases all efforts made to improve and moralize the US foreign policy, and it severely weakens the diplomatic position of the US. Trump can negociate whatever he wants after that, it won't change the fact that trust in the US will drop severely, and yes that will include European countries.

8) conclusion Now, am I sure that Trump will invade someone ? Yes, but that's a personnal bias. There are no certainty until it's a done deal. It's possible that this is just Trump trying to be relevant, or like one of the linked articles said, trying to create chaos. But I'm not convinced. Trump feels empowered, allowed to do anything he wants. He won't feel like he has to hold back. So he may decide to actually invade a country. Do we have certainty on the consequences of such an invasion ? No, because here I looked only at the invasions and their geopolitical consequences if nothing else changes. The world is a constantly churning mass of variables that interact in exotic and sometimes very roundabout ways. But I think my analysis is solid and credible, and it would take a hell of a change for what I described her to not happen. I guess we'll have to see what Trump decides to do.

[libertariantaoist]

As the “Russia-gate” farce continues to dominate the American “news” media,  and President Trump’s foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters  find baffling, one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed  to be “Putin’s puppet,” as Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would  have it. The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver  Stone, has an explanation:

“Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton,  Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and now your fourth one.

“Putin: Yes, that’s true.

“Stone: What changes?

“Putin: Well, almost nothing.”

Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:

“Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially  in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the  one that rules the world.”

This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the  context of Stone’s questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks  of the various candidates: Trump’s name doesn’t come up, but Stone does ask  about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:

“It’s not up to us to say. It’s not whether we are going to like it or not.  All I can say is as follows … the force of the United States bureaucracy is  very great. It’s immense. And there are many facts not visible about the candidates  until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or  she feels the burden.”

So it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White  House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power  is – almost – unchallengable. And so, given this, Putin’s answer to Stone’s  somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, “Why did you hack the election?”, is anti-climactic.  The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as “a very  silly statement,” and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the  prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic.

Trump and his campaign, says Putin, “understood where their voters were located”  – a reference, I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin,  and Pennsylvania. Clinton’s supporters “should have drawn conclusions from what  they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn’t have tried to shift the  blame on to something outside.” This is what the more perceptive  progressives are saying  – but then again I suppose that they, too, are “Putin’s puppets.”

This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it’s interesting  how Putin predicted what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct  of his foreign policy:

“And I think that Obama’s outgoing team has created a minefield for the  incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which  makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave  to the people.”

To say the least.

There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that  has been ignored by the “mainstream” media, including

Putin tells Stone that the Ukraine snipers who shot      at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an      event that signaled the end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and      financed in the West: “[W]e have information available to us that armed      groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and      in a number of other places.”

Putin has evidence of Turkish      support for ISIS: “During the G20 summit, when the journalists left      the room, I took out photos … and from my place where I was sitting I showed      those photos [of ISIS oil being transported to Turkey] to everyone. I showed      it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier. And      we have shown these photos to our American counterparts…. Everyone knew      about everything. So trying to open a door which is already open is simply      senseless. It’s something that is absolutely evident. So it’s not about      one single truck – there are thousands of trucks  going through that route.      It looks as if it were a living pipeline.”

At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone and shows Stone a video of      a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking “By the way, they were coming      from the Turkish side of the border.”

Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: “According to the data we      received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants      from the Caucasus.” In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts,      the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients,      and the missive “even named the employee of the US Special Services who      worked in the US embassy in Baku.”

And then there’s one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone  brings up the Snowden revelation  that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of  shutting that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted  Russia in the same way. Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story  reporting that this  is indeed the case.

There’s a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my  favorites are the instances in which Stone’s leftism comes up against Putin’s  paleoconservatism. At several points the issue of “anti-Americanism” comes up,  and the debate between the two is illuminating in that it reveals the Russian  leader’s instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies  of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: “Are you a communist?”  Stone denies it: “I’m a capitalist!”

There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from  “Dr. Strangelove,” the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally.  The sardonic expression on Putin’s face speaks volumes.  Early on, Stone asks  “What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?”  To which Putin replies: “Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very  candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire.” In speaking about Washington’s  unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:

“You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and  they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You’re  not the first.”

To which Putin replies: “We wouldn’t like to be the last.” And he laughs.

Putin’s sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts  what the consequences for Stone will be when “The Putin Interviews” is released:

“You’ve never been beaten before in your life?,” says Putin. “Oh yes, many  times,” says Stone. I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten,  but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on to say: “Then it’s not going to be anything  new, because you’re going to suffer for what you’re about to do.” “No, I know,”  says Stone, “but it’s worth it. It’s worth it to try to bring some more peace  and consciousness to the world.”

Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what’s  very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews:  they simply accuse Stone of being a “useful  idiot,” a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that’s being revived by  the liberals who used to be labeled as such.

And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series,  one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that’s been perpetrated on the  American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal  enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for  budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing  it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by “The Putin  Interviews” is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the  vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would  like very much to bring to realization.

What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential  benefit to both countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The  entire “Deep State” apparatus, which Putin is very much aware of, is implacably  opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything to stop it. But why?

There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is  dependent on hostility between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic “allies’  in Europe – as well as cultural issues. Russia is essentially a conservative  society, and our “progressive” elites hate it for that reason. Which brings  us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political  class, and that is Putin’s commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.

Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is  what sets them against not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their  allegiance isn’t to the United States as a separate entity, but to the “Free  World,” whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even more explicit  about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions  such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.

This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries,  the conflict that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule:  it is globalism versus national sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign  policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts the parties of all countries  on one side of the barricades or the other.

In his famous essay, “The End of History,” neoconservative  theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as the  inevitable outcome of human experience: a “universal homogenous State” that  would extend its power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course  nothing is inevitable, at least in that sense and on that scale, a fact the  elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they are working day  and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this  country and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment  to strike. And Putin, the ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived  as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle to the globalist project.

That’s why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea,  or the alleged “authoritarianism” of a country that now has a multi-party system  a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism. Even if Russia  were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they  would demonize him and his country for this very reason.

As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism,  I would not venture a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers  that if ever this worldwide “homogenous State” comes into being, there will  be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.

Editorial note: This is the third and last part of a three-part  series on Oliver Stone’s “The Putin Interviews.” The first part is here,  and the second part is here.  You can get the book version  –  which contains some material not included in  the film  –  here.